96 F.3d 1430 (1st Cir. 1996), 96-1270, Sullivan v. Corrections, Maine Warden

Docket Nº:96-1270.
Citation:96 F.3d 1430
Party Name:John J. SULLIVAN, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CORRECTIONS, ME. WARDEN, Defendant, Appellee.
Case Date:September 16, 1996
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1430

96 F.3d 1430 (1st Cir. 1996)

John J. SULLIVAN, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

CORRECTIONS, ME. WARDEN, Defendant, Appellee.

No. 96-1270.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

September 16, 1996

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA1 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. Eugene W. Beaulieu, U.S. Magistrate Judge ]

D.Me.

AFFIRMED.

John J. Sullivan on brief pro se.

Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, Diane Sleek and Thomas Warren, Assistant Attorneys General, on brief for appellee.

Before SELYA, CYR and BOUDIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CIRIAM.

John J. Sullivan, a New Hampshire state prisoner, appeals pro se from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Martin Magnusson, former Warden of the Maine State Prison. We affirm.

On October 12, 1995, Sullivan filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint seeking damages against Magnusson for violation of his rights under the First Amendment. The complaint alleges that Sullivan was housed at the Maine State Prison between September 30, 1988 and December 16, 1993. The complaint further alleges that on the latter date, Sullivan was transferred from the Maine State Prison back to the New Hampshire State Prison in retaliation for Sullivan's writing a newspaper column for the Maine Times.

On February 1, 1996, Magnusson moved for summary judgment. The motion was supported by an affidavit of Magnusson attesting that he transferred Sullivan because Sullivan's complaints that he deserved certain employment positions (held by other prisoners) due to what Sullivan considered to be his superior abilities had resulted in staff becoming increasingly unwilling to employ Sullivan and other prisoners becoming increasingly unwilling to work with him. Magnusson further attested that he began to receive reports that the situation had deteriorated to the point that Sullivan's personal safety was at risk from other prisoners. Sullivan filed an opposition supported by his own sworn statement and by various documents. An additional cross-round of filings followed. On February 20, 1996, summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Magnusson. This appeal followed.

Appellees do not dispute, and we assume...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP