Court Opinion

ID: 2965513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:41:21.871732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:07.138219
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 98-1143

                         RICHARD WILKES,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

                    CITY OF ROCHESTER, ET AL.,

                      Defendants, Appellees.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

         [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                     Torruella, Chief Judge,
                 Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                
                                

     Richard Wilkes on brief pro se.
     Donald E. Gardner, John P. Sherman, and Devine, Millimet &
Branch on brief for appellees.

September 21, 1998

                                
                                

            Per Curiam.  We have carefully reviewed the record in
    this case, including the briefs of the parties.  Except as to
    the disposition of the pendent claims, we find no abuse of
    discretion in the dismissal of this case.  
              Several factors support the decision to dismiss this
    case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).  First, plaintiff
    violated an explicit court order by failing to file a response
    to defendants' motion to dismiss.  See Figueroa Ruiz v.
    Alegria, 896 F.2d 645, 647 (1st Cir. 1990).  Moreover, this
    disobedience occurred after the district court had shown
    sensitivity to plaintiff's pro se status by extending the time
    for filing a response and explaining exactly why the previous
    response was inadequate.  See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
    1258, 1261 (9th Cir.) (upholding dismissal where court had
    shown similar "sensitivity" to a pro se plaintiff's inadequate
    complaint), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992).  
              Second, dismissal occurred only after plaintiff had
    been explicitly warned of the consequences of his failure to
    obey the court order.  See Figueroa Ruiz, 896 F.2d at 547.
              Third, our review of the record convinces us that
    plaintiff's case, at least in regard to its federal claims,
    suffers from "glaring weaknesses."  Id.  For example, insofar
    as any of plaintiff's constitutional claims are not time
    barred, they are barred by the existence of adequate state
    remedies for inverse condemnation and conversion.  See Culebras
    Enterprises Corp. v. Rivera Rios, 813 F.2d 506, 512-13 (1st
    Cir. 1987) (adequate state remedies bar just compensation
    claim); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (deprivation
    of property).  Plaintiff also fails to allege any "enduring
    criminal conduct" sufficient to sustain his RICO claim.  SeeFeinstein v. Resolution Trust Corp., 942 F.2d 34, 45 (1st Cir.
    1991) (RICO claim requires allegation either that predicate
    acts extended more than a few weeks or that a realistic threat
    of continued criminal activity exists).
              A final factor supporting dismissal in this case is
    the need to flush out at any early stage meritless RICO and
    civil rights claims since the mere assertion of these claims
    often has a "stigmatizing effect on those named as defendants." 
    Figueroa Ruiz, 896 F.2d at 650; see also Dartmouth Review v.
    Dartmouth College, 889 F.2d 13, 16 (1st Cir. 1989) (unfounded
    civil rights actions may "tar[] defendant's reputation
    unfairly"). 
              For all the above reason, the district court did not
    abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's federal claims. 
    However, the court order appears to dismiss with prejudice
    plaintiff's pendent state claims as well.  This court has held
    it preferable to dismiss pendent state claims for want of
    jurisdiction.  Figueroa Ruiz, 896 F.2d at 650.
              As to the federal claims, the judgment of dismissal
    is affirmed.  
              As to the pendent claims, the judgment is vacated and
    the case remanded with directions to enter a judgment
    dismissing the pendent claims without prejudice.