Scribd
Upload
31 views5 pages

Stow v. State Prison, 1st Cir. (1993)

The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the district court's granting of summary judgment to the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff, an inmate, did not provide sufficient evidence that the prison's inter-library loan system requiring exact case or statutory citations for document requests denied him access to Massachusetts courts. While the system does not seem unrealistic on its face, the ruling does not prevent future challenges if the plaintiff can demonstrate specific problems amounting to a denial of access.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
31 views5 pages

Stow v. State Prison, 1st Cir. (1993)

The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the district court's granting of summary judgment to the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff, an inmate, did not provide sufficient evidence that the prison's inter-library loan system requiring exact case or statutory citations for document requests denied him access to Massachusetts courts. While the system does not seem unrealistic on its face, the ruling does not prevent future challenges if the plaintiff can demonstrate specific problems amounting to a denial of access.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 92-2412
WESTON J. STOW,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PRISON, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Martin F. Loughlin, Senior U.S. District Judge]
__________________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Weston J. Stow on brief pro se.
______________
Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General, and Ann F. Larney,
_________________
_____________
Attorney General, on brief for appellees.

Assist

____________________
June 9, 1993
____________________

Per Curiam.
___________

Plaintiff argues

that

the

library loan system provides him constitutionally


access to

Massachusetts courts

materials for
citation.

See,
___

which he provides

because he

inadequate

can only

an exact case

1, 4 (1st

exact citation system because

unrealistic to expect a prisoner

obtain

or statutory

e.g., Cepulonis v. Fair, 732 F.2d


____ _________
____

Cir. 1984) (criticizing

inter-

to know in advance

it is
exactly

what materials he needs).


The sole support
that exact
librarian

citations

are

plaintiff provided for his


required

asking plaintiff to

was

letter

be "as specific

claim
from

as possible"

and to make

sure that caselaw

and statutory citations

Plaintiff

did not, for

were

copied

accurately.

example, submit

copies

of inter-library loan requests which had been refused

because not in exact citation form.


The
defendants'

district

to check the

copy

does not

respond

supply

not

err

judgment.

accuracy of any

That

identify what he

Massachusetts

a librarian
and cautioned

officials would

or would

needed were plaintiff

Consequently,

in

present suit, which

was essentially a

inter-library

system,

loan

granting

citations plaintiff might

exact citation requests

citations.

in

as specific as possible

indicate that

only to

plaintiff

did

motion for summary

asked plaintiff to be
him

court

the

the

not help
unable to
of

the

facial attack on

the

court

context

correctly

entered

-2-

judgment

for defendants.

however,

to

specific

problems

a future

Our ruling is

lawsuit,

utilizing the

should

without prejudice,
plaintiff encounter

inter-library

loan system

amounting to the level of a denial of access to Massachusetts

courts.
(7th

See, e.g., Corgain


___ ____ _______

Cir. 1983) (upholding

v. Miller, 708 F.2d


______
facial adequacy of

1241, 1251
access plan,

but not foreclosing future challenge to plan as implemented).


Affirmed.
________

-3-

You might also like