×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
No Preliminary Inunction for Firing of Prisoner Law Clerks
The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Massachusetts federal
district court's order denying prisoners at MCI-Cedar Junction a
preliminary injunction seeking to reinstate them to their law clerk
positions at the prison. The prisoners argued they were terminated in
retaliation for filing grievances, but prison officials said the prisoners
received disciplinary tickets and were terminated pursuant to prison policy
for receiving such tickets. The court found the prisoners failed to show
irreparable harm.
First, the prisoners argued they suffered irreparable harm because they
would lose good time" credits they would otherwise obtain as a result of
prison employment. The court, while recognizing the truth of this claim,
held the prisoners may be entitled to seek a retroactive award of good time
credits if it is later determined they were wrongfully discharged from
their positions.
Second, the prisoners alleged irreparable harm as the prisoners they had
been assisting were now without their assistance." The court found the
prison had three other law clerks available, and there was no reason not to
believe those clerks were fully able to perform the responsibilities
required by the job. Also, prisoner legal assistance is not
constitutionally mandated.
As for the prisoners' due process claim, the appellate court found that
prisoners have no vested property or liberty rights to either obtain or
maintain employment. Accordingly, the district court's order was affirmed.
See: Dupont v. Sanders, 800 F.2d 8 (1 Cir. 1986).
district court's order denying prisoners at MCI-Cedar Junction a
preliminary injunction seeking to reinstate them to their law clerk
positions at the prison. The prisoners argued they were terminated in
retaliation for filing grievances, but prison officials said the prisoners
received disciplinary tickets and were terminated pursuant to prison policy
for receiving such tickets. The court found the prisoners failed to show
irreparable harm.
First, the prisoners argued they suffered irreparable harm because they
would lose good time" credits they would otherwise obtain as a result of
prison employment. The court, while recognizing the truth of this claim,
held the prisoners may be entitled to seek a retroactive award of good time
credits if it is later determined they were wrongfully discharged from
their positions.
Second, the prisoners alleged irreparable harm as the prisoners they had
been assisting were now without their assistance." The court found the
prison had three other law clerks available, and there was no reason not to
believe those clerks were fully able to perform the responsibilities
required by the job. Also, prisoner legal assistance is not
constitutionally mandated.
As for the prisoners' due process claim, the appellate court found that
prisoners have no vested property or liberty rights to either obtain or
maintain employment. Accordingly, the district court's order was affirmed.
See: Dupont v. Sanders, 800 F.2d 8 (1 Cir. 1986).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Dupont v. Sanders
| Year | 1986 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 800 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1986). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
Dupont v. Saunders, 800 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 09/08/1986)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
[2] Nos. 86-1149, 86-1150
[3] 800 F.2d 8
[4] September 8, 1986
[5] MICHAEL KEVIN DUPONT, PLAINTIFF, APPELLANT,
v.
KARIN SAUNDERS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, APPELLEES; MICHAEL KEVIN DUPONT, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, APPELLEES, V. KARIN SAUNDERS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, APPELLEES, HASAN AMIR, GARY MOSSO, JOHN MACNEIL, PLAINTIFFS, APPELLANTS
[6] APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge.
[7] Michael Kevin Dupont and John J. MacNeil, on brief Pro Se.
[8] Alexander G. Gray, Jr., Assistant Attorney General and Francis X. Bellotti, Attorney General, on brief for Appellees.
[9] Coffin, Bownes, and Torruella, Circuit Judges.
[10] Author: Per Curiam
[11] Presently before us is an appeal from the district court's order denying plaintiffs-appellants' motion for a preliminary injunction.
[12] Plaintiffs below are a group of inmates at MCI-Cedar Junction. Their lengthy complaint raises a number of issues relating to the prison law library and other prison matters. Two of the plaintiffs, Michael Kevin Dupont and Hasan Amir, sought before the district court a preliminary injunction reinstating them to their positions as inmate law library clerks. Dupont and Amir claim they were wrongfully removed from their library positions in retaliation for exercising first amendment rights by making complaints against prison officials relating to perceived violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act) and a federal court decree creating a satellite law library for segregated prisoners at MCI-Cedar Junction, see Cepulonis v. Fair,732 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1984), affirming in part and vacating in part, 563 F. Supp. 659 (D. Mass. 1983). Appellees, various prison officials, claim Dupont and Amir were removed from their positions for cause, in accordance with a prison regulation stating that any inmate receiving a disciplinary ticket may be terminated from his work assignment. See WAL 450.09(B), set out at page A-67 of appellants' brief. Appellees assert that Amir was terminated because he was given a disciplinary ticket on June 11, 1985 by a prison librarian for refusing to work, and that Dupont was suspended because he was given a disciplinary ticket in October, 1985, for refusing to obey an order.
[13] The district court, accepting a magistrate's recommendation, denied Amir and Dupont's motion for preliminary relief, concluding they failed to show that they will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, or a likelihood of success on their claims that (1) they have liberty or property rights to employment as inmate law library clerks, and (2) they were terminated for activity protected by the first amendment. We affirm on the basis that appellants failed to show the irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits necessary for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See Planned Parenthood League of Mass. v. Bellotti,641 F.2d 1006, 1009 (1st Cir. 1981).
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
[2] Nos. 86-1149, 86-1150
[3] 800 F.2d 8
[4] September 8, 1986
[5] MICHAEL KEVIN DUPONT, PLAINTIFF, APPELLANT,
v.
KARIN SAUNDERS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, APPELLEES; MICHAEL KEVIN DUPONT, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, APPELLEES, V. KARIN SAUNDERS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, APPELLEES, HASAN AMIR, GARY MOSSO, JOHN MACNEIL, PLAINTIFFS, APPELLANTS
[6] APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge.
[7] Michael Kevin Dupont and John J. MacNeil, on brief Pro Se.
[8] Alexander G. Gray, Jr., Assistant Attorney General and Francis X. Bellotti, Attorney General, on brief for Appellees.
[9] Coffin, Bownes, and Torruella, Circuit Judges.
[10] Author: Per Curiam
[11] Presently before us is an appeal from the district court's order denying plaintiffs-appellants' motion for a preliminary injunction.
[12] Plaintiffs below are a group of inmates at MCI-Cedar Junction. Their lengthy complaint raises a number of issues relating to the prison law library and other prison matters. Two of the plaintiffs, Michael Kevin Dupont and Hasan Amir, sought before the district court a preliminary injunction reinstating them to their positions as inmate law library clerks. Dupont and Amir claim they were wrongfully removed from their library positions in retaliation for exercising first amendment rights by making complaints against prison officials relating to perceived violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act) and a federal court decree creating a satellite law library for segregated prisoners at MCI-Cedar Junction, see Cepulonis v. Fair,732 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1984), affirming in part and vacating in part, 563 F. Supp. 659 (D. Mass. 1983). Appellees, various prison officials, claim Dupont and Amir were removed from their positions for cause, in accordance with a prison regulation stating that any inmate receiving a disciplinary ticket may be terminated from his work assignment. See WAL 450.09(B), set out at page A-67 of appellants' brief. Appellees assert that Amir was terminated because he was given a disciplinary ticket on June 11, 1985 by a prison librarian for refusing to work, and that Dupont was suspended because he was given a disciplinary ticket in October, 1985, for refusing to obey an order.
[13] The district court, accepting a magistrate's recommendation, denied Amir and Dupont's motion for preliminary relief, concluding they failed to show that they will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, or a likelihood of success on their claims that (1) they have liberty or property rights to employment as inmate law library clerks, and (2) they were terminated for activity protected by the first amendment. We affirm on the basis that appellants failed to show the irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits necessary for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See Planned Parenthood League of Mass. v. Bellotti,641 F.2d 1006, 1009 (1st Cir. 1981).