Weber v. Magnusson

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Weber v. Magnusson

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion




[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


___________________


No. 94-1363

JERRY WILLIAM WEBER,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

MARTIN A. MAGNUSSON,

Defendant, Appellee.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. Eugene W. Beaulieu, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
_____________________

____________________

Before

Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

Jerry William Weber on brief pro se.
___________________
Michael E. Carpenter, Attorney General, and Diane Sleek,
_______________________ ____________
Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.


____________________

September 2, 1994
____________________





























Per Curiam. Plaintiff-appellant Jerry William
___________

Weber, a Maine inmate, filed a pro se complaint in the

district court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, against Martin

A. Magnusson, the warden of the Maine State Prison. The

complaint alleges violations of Weber's right to free speech

under the First Amendment and to equal protection under the

Fourteenth Amendment. Appellee Magnusson filed a motion for

summary judgment with respect to both claims. On March 16,

1994, a magistrate judge ("magistrate") granted appellee's

motion in its entirety. This appeal followed.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the

record on appeal. We affirm the grant of summary judgment in

favor of appellee on the free speech claim for essentially

the reasons stated by the magistrate. We also affirm the

grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee on the equal

protection claim. Based on the undisputed facts, we think it

is plain that the challenged regulation is reasonably related

to a legitimate penal interest. Moreover, to the extent that

Weber's affidavit and documentary evidence raise an issue

whether child molesters as a group are being treated

differently from murderers by prison officials, they also

demonstrate that the explanation for this difference in

treatment is rational and reasonably related to Maine's

proper interest in protecting the security of inmates. Under

the circumstances, appellee is entitled to judgment on the



-2-















equal protection claim as a matter of law. See O'Bar v.
___ _____

Pinion, 953 F.2d 74, 81 (4th Cir. 1991) (observing that
______

"[t]he state may apply the law differently based on

distinctive factual circumstances if the distinction is

rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose").

Affirmed.
_________









































-3-







Reference

Status
Published