
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1222                                   ERVIN TRIPLETT,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                                JOSEPH LEHMAN, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Ervin Triplett on brief pro se.            ______________            Andrew  Ketterer,  Attorney  General,  Diane  Sleek  and  Peter J.            ________________                       ____________       ________        Brann, Assistant Attorney Generals, on brief for appellees.        _____                                 ____________________                                   August 21, 1996                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   Pro se plaintiff Ervin Triplett  appeals a                 __________    ___ __            district  court order  that dismissed  his 42  U.S.C.    1983            complaint  for injunctive relief  from the alleged  denial of            his right  of access to  the courts.  That  complaint alleged            that  the  defendant  employees of  the  Maine  Department of            Corrections  had violated that  right by denying  or ignoring            plaintiff's requests for access to the prison  law library at            MCI-Warren.1                       1                 As   it  is  undisputed  that  plaintiff  is  no  longer            incarcerated  at MCI-Warren, we agree that the district court            properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint as moot.  See United                                                               ___ ______            States v. Munsingwear,  340 U.S. 36,  39-40 (1950); Gomes  v.            ______    ___________                               _____            Rhode Island Interscholastic  League, 604 F.2d 733,  736 (1st            ____________________________________            Cir.  1979); Keleghan v. Industrial Trust  Co., 211 F.2d 134,                         ________    _____________________            135 (per curiam).   We decline  to address plaintiff's  claim            that  the defendants  transferred him  out  of MCI-Warren  in            retaliation  for filing  this lawsuit.    As plaintiff  never            clearly alleged that he was seeking damages for a retaliatory            transfer  and further  failed to  serve  the defendants  with            notice of this claim, it is not properly before us.                 The judgment of the district court is affirmed.                                                       ________                                            ____________________               1Although we do not reach the issue in the present appeal,               1            we  note that  the plaintiff's  complaint  patently fails  to            state  a  viable  claim  under  the  Supreme  Court's  recent            decision in Lewis v. Casey, 64 U.S.L.W. 4587, 4589 (U.S. June                        _____    _____            24,  1996)(holding that prisoner  must show actual  injury to            establish violation of right of access to the courts).                                         -2-
