Court Opinion

ID: 2963765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:54.720756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:45.864335
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          November 28, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1557

                                 WILLIAM J. CORCORAN,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               TOWN OF SUDBURY, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Stahl and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            William J. Corcoran on brief pro se.
            ___________________
            Paul L.  Kenny,  Town Counsel,  on  brief  for appellees  Town  of
            ______________
        Sudbury, et al.
            David J. Hatem, Warren D. Hutchison,  Andrew J. McBreen and  Burns
            ______________  ___________________   _________________      _____
        & Levinson on brief for appellee Elisa D. Cunningham.
        __________
            Wayne H. Scott on brief for appellee Wayne H. Scott.
            ______________
            Mark  A. McCormack  and Sloane  and  Walsh  on brief  for appellee
            __________________      __________________
        Cuddy, Lynch & Bixby.
            John  E. Sutherland  and Brickley,  Sears  &  Sorett on  brief for
            ___________________      ___________________________
        appellee Francis H. Clark.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   Appellant William J.  Corcoran appeals the
                 __________

            dismissal  by  the  United  States  District  Court  for  the

            District   of   Massachusetts  of   his   complaint  alleging

            violations  of his civil rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.   1983

            and 42  U.S.C.    1985, and a  state law  claim for  attorney

            negligence.  Both the federal and state claims arise out of a

            decision   by  the  Sudbury   Town  Planning   Board  denying

            Corcoran's  request for  approval of  a plan  to subdivide  a

            parcel of land.  The Supreme Judicial Court of  Massachusetts

            eventually  ordered that the plan be approved.  We affirm the

            dismissal  of the federal claims but  vacate the dismissal of

            the Corcoran's state claim.

                 Corcoran  alleges  violations of  his federal  rights to

            procedural and  substantive due process, as well as his right

            to equal protection.  However, in each case, he has failed to

            allege facts sufficient to support his claim.  Therefore, his

            civil rights claims were properly dismissed. 

                 Corcoran's  right  to  procedural due  process  was  not

            violated because, even if the  initial denial of his proposed

            plan by  the Town Planning  Board was unjustified,  the state

            provided  an adequate remedy  through the  appellate process.

            See PFZ Properties, Inc.  v. Rodriguez, 928 F.2d 28,  31 (1st
            ___ ___________________      _________

            Cir. 1991)  (no violation  of  procedural due  process  where

            state  provides adequate judicial remedies for administrative

            error).  Moreover, this court has held repeatedly, in similar

            cases, that, when the state provides adequate postdeprivation

            relief,  the  mere   delay  in  obtaining   that  relief   is

            insufficient to support a procedural due  process claim.  See
                                                                      ___

            Licari  v. Ferruzzi, 22 F.3d 344, 349 (1st Cir. 1994) (citing
            ______     ________

            cases).

                 Corcoran's substantive due  process claim fails  because

            he has alleged  no facts  which in any  sense constitute  the

            sort of "conscience shocking" behavior necessary to support a

            substantive  due process  claim in  the context  of  a zoning

            dispute.  See id. at 350.
                      ___ __

                  Corcoran's claim  that he  suffered a violation  of his

            right  to equal protection is  precluded by the  fact that he

            has  not alleged that  any selective treatment  he might have

            received was "based on  impermissible considerations such  as

            race, religion,  intent to inhibit or punish  the exercise of

            constitutional rights,  or malicious  or bad faith  intent to

            injure."   Rubinovitz v. Rogato,  60 F.3d 906,  910 (1st Cir.
                       __________    ______

            1995) (quoting Yerardi's Moody  St. Restaurant & Lounge, Inc.
                           ______________________________________________

            v. Board of Selectmen, 878 F.2d 16, 21 (1st Cir. 1989)).
               __________________

                 "As  a general principle, the unfavorable disposition of

            a plaintiff's federal claims  at the early stages of  a suit,

            well  before  the commencement  of  trial,  will trigger  the

            dismissal  without prejudice  of any  supplemental state  law

            claim."   Rodriguez v. Doral Mortg. Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1177
                      _________    __________________

            (1st Cir. 1995).  The district court has the authority, based

            on  its assessment  of  the "totality  of circumstances,"  to

            retain jurisdiction over state law claims in such cases.  Id.
                                                                      __

                                         -3-

            (giving  examples  of some  factors to  be considered  by the

            district court in this assessment).  

                 In the instant case, although the district court granted

            the motion  to dismiss the claim for  attorney negligence, it

            does not  appear to  have undertaken the  requisite calculus.

            This  failure might  induce  us to  remand  the case  to  the

            district  court for a proper exercise of its discretion.  See
                                                                      ___

            Wright  v. Associated Ins. Cos., 29 F.3d 1244, 1251 (7th Cir.
            ______     ____________________

            1994) (finding dismissal improper in part because of district

            court's  failure to  perform  requisite calculus).   However,

            having reviewed  the record, we find  nothing which indicates

            that this is an  unusual case where supplemental jurisdiction

            should be exercised.  See Brennan v. Hendrigan, 888 F.2d 189,
                                  ___ _______    _________

            196 (1st Cir. 1989).

                 For the foregoing  reasons, the dismissal of  Corcoran's

            federal claims is affirmed.   The dismissal of his  claim for
                              ________

            attorney negligence  is vacated and remanded  to the district
                                    _______     ________

            court  with  instructions   to  dismiss  the   claim  without

            prejudice to  Corcoran's refiling  the claim in  state court.

            See Gloucester M.R.  Corp. v. Charles Parisi, Inc.,  848 F.2d
            ___ ______________________    ____________________

            12, 16 (1st Cir. 1988).

                                         -4-