Opinion ID: 198202
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disciplinary Procedure Due Process Claim

Text: 14 It is well established that a state actor's failure to observe a duty imposed by state law, standing alone, is not sufficient to establish a § 1983 claim. See Martinez v. Colon, 54 F.3d 980, 989 (1st Cir.1995). Although it is true that constitutional significance may attach to certain interests created by state law, not every transgression of state law does double duty as a constitutional violation. Id. As this Court stated in Martinez: [T]he Constitution is not an empty ledger awaiting the entry of an aggrieved litigant's recitation of alleged state law violations.... Id. 15 Fournier cites Massachusetts law, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, § 40, 1 and departmental regulations which govern the discipline of recruits in training programs, to found his claim of a § 1983 violation. However, whether Massachusetts law was violated or the department failed to follow its own disciplinary procedures matters little because neither alleged deficiency establishes a § 1983 violation.