Court Opinion

ID: 2964999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:56.590258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:04.153946
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1273

                                    SAMUEL JONES,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

              MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND CHRISTOPHER
                                      J. BLACH,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                                 ____________________

            Samuel Jones on brief pro se.
            ____________
            Merita A. Hopkins and Dawna McIntyre on brief for appellees.
            _________________     ______________

                                 ____________________

                                   November 6, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   Samuel Jones  appeals  from the  district
                 ___________

            court's dismissal of  his action asserting federal  and state

            claims against the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

            (the "MBTA") and  Christopher Blach, an employee  of the City

            of Boston.  We affirm.

                 First, given  Jones's settlement agreement with the MBTA

            which  resolved  all  of  his claims  against  the  MBTA, the

            district  court properly  dismissed  the  action against  the

            MBTA.   See  C. Wright, A.  Miller &  E. Cooper,  13A Federal
                    ___                                           _______

            Practice and  Procedure     3533.2,  at  233  (2d  ed.  1984)
            _______________________

            (settlement moots  a case).1   Second,  the grant  of summary
                                       1

            judgment against Jones on his federal claim against Blach was

            also  proper.   Counsel  for  Jones  expressly  informed  the

            district  court that  he  did not  intend  to oppose  summary

            judgment on that  claim, and Blach's summary  judgment motion

            correctly  explained  why the  allegations  in  the complaint

            failed to state a claim for relief.  On appeal, Jones has not

            explained why,  under those  circumstances, it  was error  to

            grant  summary judgment for Blach.  Third, the district court

            did  not  abuse  its  discretion  by  declining  to  exercise

            supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims against Blach

            once the court had dismissed the federal claims.  Counsel for

            Jones  essentially asked the court to  dismiss the claims and

                                
            ____________________

               1In view  of our  finding, there is  no need  to determine
               1
            whether the MBTA was a party on appeal.

                                         -2-

            made no argument  in support of exercising  jurisdiction over

            those claims.  Under state  law, Jones could have refiled the

            state claims in state court.  See M.G.L. c. 260,   32 (claims
                                          ___

            dismissed for  "any matter of  form" may be refiled  in state

            court  for one year after their  dismissal); Duca v. Martins,
                                                         ____    _______

            941  F. Supp.  1281, 1295  n.14 (D.  Mass.  1996) (dismissing

            state  law  claim  without  prejudice  after  dismissing  the

            plaintiff's federal  claim because M.G.L.  c. 260,    32 gave

            the plaintiff one year in which to refile his claim  in state

            court) (citing Liberace v. Conway,  31 Mass. App. Ct. 40, 43,
                           ________    ______

            574 N.E.2d 1010, 1012, review denied, 411 Mass. 1102 (1991)).
                                   _____________

            On appeal, Jones  suggests that the claims may  "now" be time

            barred in state court,  but that fact has  no bearing on  the

            propriety of  the court's  earlier decision  not to  exercise

            supplemental jurisdiction  over the  state claims.   Finally,

            Jones has not  explained why his malicious  prosecution claim

            could properly have been brought under   1983.   See Roche et
                                                             ___ ________

            ux. Roche  v. John Hancock Mut.  Life Ins. Co.,  81 F.3d 249,
            _________     ________________________________

            256 (1st  Cir. 1996) ("garden-variety"  malicious prosecution

            claims cannot  be brought  under   1983).   In  addition, his

            counsel  represented to the district court that the malicious

            prosecution claim  was a state  law claim, and, as  such, the

            court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

            over it.

                 Affirmed.
                 _________

                                         -3-