[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 92-2412
WESTON J. STOW,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PRISON, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Martin F. Loughlin, Senior U.S. District Judge]
__________________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Weston J. Stow on brief pro se.
______________
Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General, and Ann F. Larney, Assistant
_________________ _____________
Attorney General, on brief for appellees.
____________________
June 9, 1993
____________________
Per Curiam. Plaintiff argues that the inter-
___________
library loan system provides him constitutionally inadequate
access to Massachusetts courts because he can only obtain
materials for which he provides an exact case or statutory
citation. See, e.g., Cepulonis v. Fair, 732 F.2d 1, 4 (1st
___ ____ _________ ____
Cir. 1984) (criticizing exact citation system because it is
unrealistic to expect a prisoner to know in advance exactly
what materials he needs).
The sole support plaintiff provided for his claim
that exact citations are required was a letter from a
librarian asking plaintiff to be "as specific as possible"
and to make sure that caselaw and statutory citations were
copied accurately. Plaintiff did not, for example, submit
copies of inter-library loan requests which had been refused
because not in exact citation form.
The district court did not err in granting
defendants' motion for summary judgment. That a librarian
asked plaintiff to be as specific as possible and cautioned
him to check the accuracy of any citations plaintiff might
copy does not indicate that Massachusetts officials would
respond only to exact citation requests or would not help
plaintiff identify what he needed were plaintiff unable to
supply citations. Consequently, in the context of the
present suit, which was essentially a facial attack on the
inter-library loan system, the court correctly entered
-2-
judgment for defendants. Our ruling is without prejudice,
however, to a future lawsuit, should plaintiff encounter
specific problems utilizing the inter-library loan system
amounting to the level of a denial of access to Massachusetts
courts. See, e.g., Corgain v. Miller, 708 F.2d 1241, 1251
___ ____ _______ ______
(7th Cir. 1983) (upholding facial adequacy of access plan,
but not foreclosing future challenge to plan as implemented).
Affirmed.
________
-3-