Guzman-Rivera v. Metropolitan Det. (1st Cir. 1997)

Federal Circuits, 1st Cir. (November 13, 1997)

Docket number: 97-1593.01A

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/guzman-rivera-v-metropolitan-det-20197736
Id. vLex: VLEX-20197736

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Supreme Court - Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Cir. - Ronald Del Raine, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jerry T. Williford, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Marion, Illinois; Norman A. Carlson, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Harold G. Miller, Former Warden, United States Penitentiary, Marion, Illinois; Kip Dillow; Patrick W. Keohane; John Brush; J.D. Lamer; Randel Burlison; Dr. Robert Denton, Carl S. Deer, Davis Whitaker (Formerly P. Whitaker); Thomas J. Gora, L. Edwards, Charles Sansom, Jon Michael Moralez, Michael B. Walker, John Sullivan, John L. Clark, Larry Morrison, Joseph Sively, Thomas v. Krajenta, L. Sheffer, Guy Barker, T.R. Trusty, Gary Thompson, P. Pool, Steve R. Thomas, Lieutenant Wertenberger, D. Williams, Steve Pysher, John Doe I, John Doe Ii, Gary French (Formerly Known as John Doe Iii), and John Doe Iv, Defendants-Appellees., 32 F.3d 1024 (7th Cir. 1994) Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jerry T. Williford, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Marion, Illinois; Norman A. Carlson, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Harold G. Miller, Former Warden, United States Penitentiary, Marion, Illinois; Kip Dillow; Patrick W. Keohane; John Brush; J.D. Lamer; Randel Burlison; Dr. Robert Denton, Carl S. Deer, Davis Whitaker (Formerly P. Whitaker); Thomas J. Gora, L. Edwards, Charles Sansom, Jon Michael Moralez, Michael B. Walker, John Sullivan, John L. Clark, Larry Morrison, Joseph Sively, Thomas v. Krajenta, L. Sheffer, Guy Barker, T.R. Trusty, Gary Thompson, P. Pool, Steve R. Thomas, Lieutenant Wertenberger, D. Williams, Steve Pysher, John Doe I, John Doe Ii, Gary French (Formerly Known as John Doe Iii), and John Doe Iv, Defendants-Appellees.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Cir. - New Hampshire Right To Life Political Action Committee, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. William M. Gardner, in His Official Capacity as the Secretary of State of the State of New Hampshire, Et Al., Defendants, Appellees., 99 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 1996)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Cir. - Steven M. Desrosiers, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. John J. Moran, Et Al., Defendants, Appellees., 949 F.2d 15 (1st Cir. 1991)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 97-1593

HECTOR GUZMAN-RIVERA,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER, GUAYNABO, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Daniel R. Dominquez, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Selya, Circuit Judge, Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, and Lynch, Circuit Judge.

Hector Guzman-Rivera on brief pro se.

Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, and Lilliam Mendoza Toro, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

November 12, 1997 Per Curiam. After carefully reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the district court for essentially the reasons stated in its Opinion and Order, dated March 31, 1997. We add three comments.

First, most of appellant's claims are moot because he either has received what he wanted or because he no longer is subject to the conditions about which he complained.

Thus, these issues no longer are "live." See New Hampshire Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Gardner, 99 F.3d 8, 17 (1st Cir. 1996). Second, the negligent loss of a prisoner's property, such as books, does not implicate the due process clause and thus is not enough to state a constitutional claim. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328, 332 (1986); Del Raine v. Williford, 32 F.3d 1024, 1043 (7th Cir. 1994) ("[t]he most that the record here discloses with reference to lost or taken books is possible negligence and that is not enough for a constitutional claim").

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in not appointing counsel to represent appellant.

In a civil case, counsel is required only in "exceptional circumstances." DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991). Because this case did not involve any complex issues of law or fact, it did not present such circumstances. Affirmed. See Local Rule 27.1.