Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Notice: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 States Unpublished Opinions May Be Cited Only in Related Cases.richard Edward Steeves, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Maine Commissioner, Department of Corrections, et al.,defendants, Appellees
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 72 F.3d 121
Dec. 11, 1995
Richard Edward Steeves on brief pro se.
Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, and Diane Sleek, Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.
Before Before TORRUELLA, Chief Judge, BOUDIN and STAHL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Richard Steeves, a Maine prisoner now incarcerated in Minnesota, appeals the grant of summary judgment to defendant officials of the Maine Department of Corrections on Steeves' claim that defendants denied him constitutionally adequate access to Maine courts. We affirm.
According to the record, defendants offered to provide Steeves with an attorney through Pine Tree Legal Assistance to assist him in his post conviction proceedings. In order to take advantage of this offer, Steeves was directed to write to the Chief Advocate of the Maine Department of Corrections. Instead of following this procedure, Steeves contacted Pine Tree Legal Assistance directly and apparently sought legal assistance not for his post conviction proceeding but for obtaining a transfer back to Maine. He was informed by Pine Tree Legal Assistance that it did not generally handle prison transfer cases.
The fact that Steeves' failed in his attempt to obtain legal assistance directly from Pine Tree Legal Assistance does not indicate that such assistance would have been refused if Steeves had applied through the proper channels. Steeves has therefore failed to produce any evidence that defendants' offer to provide him with legal assistance was not genuine.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.