
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-2307                                MICHAEL A. GUGLIELMO,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                         NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PRISON, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                   [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,                                     ____________________                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.                                          _____________                                 ____________________            Michael A. Guglielmo on brief pro se.            ____________________                                 ____________________                                    April 25, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.    Upon  careful review  of the  record and                 ___________            appellant's  brief,  we perceive  no  error  in the  district            court's dismissal  of this  case.   We reach  this conclusion            essentially for the reasons  stated in the magistrate judge's            report and recommendation dated August 26, 1996.  We add only            these comments.                 1.   The  constitutionality  of   the  "cost  of   care"            reimbursement  provision,  N.H. Rev.  Stat. Ann.    622:53-58            (Supp. 1995), is not fit  for review at this time and  better            may be evaluated in the context of a live  case.  See Ernst &                                                              ___ _______            Young v.  Depositors Economic Protection Corp.,  45 F.3d 530,            _____     ____________________________________            538 (1st Cir. 1995) ("[The] claim lacks the needed dimensions            of immediacy and reality.  The challenge is not rooted in the            present,  but depends on a lengthy chain of speculation as to            what the future has in store.").                 2.   The   medical   co-payment   and   litigation   fee            provisions,   N.H. Rev.  Stat. Ann.     622:31-a  & 623-B:1-3            (Supp.  1995), are  alterations in  the prevailing  legal and            administrative regime, rather than  increases in the  measure            of  punishment.   Therefore, those  provisions are  not penal            laws  violative of the Ex Post Facto clause, U.S. Const. art.            1   10.  See California Department of Corrections v. Morales,                     ___ ____________________________________    _______            115 S.Ct. 1597, 1603  n.6 (1995); Dominique v. Weld,  73 F.3d                                              _________    ____            1156,  1163 (1st Cir. 1996);  Jones v. Murray,  962 F.2d 302,                                          _____    ______            309  (4th Cir.  1992)  ("It is  precisely because  reasonable                                         -2-            prison  regulations .  . .  are contemplated  as part  of the            sentence  of  every prisoner,  that  they  do not  constitute            additional  punishment  and are  not  classified  as ex  post            facto.").    We are  unswayed  by  the distinction  appellant            attempts to draw between "positive" laws and "regulations" or            "policies."                 3.   We   reject   appellant's   contention   that   the            litigation fee provisions violate his right of  access to the            courts.  See Lewis  v. Casey, 116 S.Ct. 2174,  2180-82 (1996)                     ___ _____     _____            (to show a violation, the litigant  must show "actual injury"            such  that an actionable claim  has been lost  or rejected or            that presentation of the claim is currently being prevented);            N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.    623-B:1(IV) ("Nothing in this section            shall  prohibit  an inmate  from  filing  a civil  action  or            proceeding if the inmate is indigent.").                  4.   We   decline  to  comment  further  on  appellant's            undeveloped   arguments  that  the   medical  co-payment  and            litigation fee provisions  violate double jeopardy  and equal            protection.                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -3-
