Now comes the Plaintiff/Appellant Ronald L'Heureux, and respectfully requests this court to reconsider the above entitled matter en banc as this courts decision is not only inconsistent with prior decisions of this court but is directly at odds with the United States Supreme courts decision and Federal Statutory law. This court's decision violates Apellant's First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
This court has deliberately avoided this issue of a lack of remedy to address State law in State court, as the Rhode Island district court has repeatedly done. Under Article VI. of the United States Constitution this court has a moral responsibility to uphold the law for everyone equally and consistently.
Appellant, is appalled and outraged by this court's statement that L'Heureux's quest to find his right to redress of his grievances (1st Amen.) and due process and equal protection of State law "frivolous. …Plaintiff's meritless and irrelevant appellate arguments cast no doubt on the dismissal." So in reality what this court does not have is the fortitude to come right out and state in simple English that both the State and Federal courts have L'Heureux literally between the proverbial rock and a hard place, and that's where you want to keep him and all similarly situated prisoners. L'Heureux cannot address his state law claims in State court, (See L'Heureux v. State DOC, 708 A. 2d 549, 552) nor can he address them in Federal court. ( See Cugini v. Ventetuolo, 781 F. Supp. 102, aff'd 966 F. 2d 1440) These claims and lack of remedy were addressed in the RI District court by Magistrate Robert Lovegreen. He apparently, like this court, has chosen for the second time to avoid the issues and thereby violate L'Heureux's Constitutional rights as briefed fully. See Brief at 8-11.
Apparently Judge Bruce M. Selya (of course coming from R.I.), Michael Boudin, and Sandra L. Lynch think justice is a joke for prisoners. The unanswered question for this Honorable court is will judges Jaun R. Torruella, (Chief Justice) Norman H. Stahl, Kermit Lipez, Bailey Aldrich, Frank M. Coffin Levin H Campbell, Hugh H. Bownes and Conrad K. Cyr, uphold L'Heureux's Constitutional right to redress of his grievances as mandated by section 1983 and it's own decision in Lynch v. Dukakis, 719 F. 2d 504 511, or condone this blatant violation of constitutional rights, now apparently by this very court! This court stated in Lynch:
"Indeed, one purpose for enacting section 1983 was to provide a federal remedy where the state remedy, though adequate in theory, was not available in practice. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167,176"
In simple layman terms, is this court going to enforce the law equally, or close it's eyes again, and thereby preclude Rhode Islanders who really want to clean up this state from doing so?