
USCA1 Opinion

	




          December 15, 1993                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 93-1405                           ERICO DAVIAS, a/k/a ERIC E. DAVIS,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                           STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                       [Hon. Shane Devine, U.S. District Judge]                                           ___________________                                 ____________________        No. 93-1424                                    ERICO DAVIAS,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                          CLEVELAND, WATERS AND BASS, P.A.,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                                                                      ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                   [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                                                                      ____________________                                        Before                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Erico Davias, a/k/a Eric Davis, on briefs pro se.            ______________________________            Jeffrey  R. Howard, Attorney General of New Hampshire, and Stephen            __________________                                         _______        J.  Judge, Senior Assistant Attorney General,  on brief for appellees,        _________        State of New Hampshire and Judd Gregg.            Wayne C.  Beyer and Richard C.  Dale, II on  Memorandum in Support            _______________     ____________________        of Motion for Summary Affirmance,  for appellee, Cleveland, Waters and        Bass, P.A.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   We affirm  the judgments in both  of these                 __________            consolidated appeals.  In No. 93-1405, we do so substantially            for  the reasons  articulated by  the district  court in  its            comprehensive trio of  decisions.  We add only  that, even if            plaintiff had a right under  Louisiana law to appeal from the            extradition order, see, e.g., State v. Hegwood, 510 So.2d 380                               ___  ____  _____    _______            (La. 1987); State v. Morales,  478 So.2d 943 (La. App. 1985),                        _____    _______            plaintiff has failed  to demonstrate  that the New  Hampshire            state defendants  were in any way involved with, or otherwise            accountable  for,  any  abridgement  of   that  right.    See                                                                      ___            generally  McBride v.  Soos, 679  F.2d  1223, 1227  (7th Cir.            _________  _______     ____            1982) ("It  is unreasonable  to require  the demanding  state            agents to be familiar with  the procedural safeguards enacted            in the asylum  state's extradition statutes and  then further            require them  to ensure  that the  statutory safeguards  have            been followed.").                  In No. 93-1424, we need not decide  whether defendant, a            private  law firm, can  be said to have  acted under color of            state  law.   It suffices  to conclude,  as explained  by the            Magistrate-Judge  in  his  Report  and  Recommendation,  that            defendant in any event was under no constitutional obligation            to  affix  a  legend  to   the  mail  it  sent  to  plaintiff            designating such correspondence  as "legal and confidential."            Plaintiff's dispute is not with defendant but rather with the            New Hampshire prison regulations that  govern the opening and            reading of mail received by inmates.  Because the law in this            area  is unsettled,1 our  affirmance is without  prejudice to            plaintiff filing a separate action against appropriate prison            officials challenging such regulations.                  The judgments are affirmed.                 ___________________________                                            ____________________            1.  See generally, e.g., Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816 (5th                _____________  ____  ______    _________            Cir. 1993); Castillo v. Cook County Mail Room Dep't, 990 F.2d                        ________    ___________________________            304 (7th Cir.  1993) (per curiam); Knop v.  Johnson, 977 F.2d                                               ____     _______            996, 1012 (6th Cir. 1992);  Henthorn v. Swinson, 955 F.2d 351                                        ________    _______            (5th Cir.)  (per  curiam),  cert. denied,  112  S.  Ct.  2974                                        ____________            (1992); United States v. Stotts, 925 F.2d 83 (4th Cir. 1991);                    _____________    ______            Martin v. Brewer, 830 F.2d 76 (7th Cir. 1987).            ______    ______                                         -4-
