Court Opinion

ID: 2963695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:01.666143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:11:52.981384
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        November 1, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1060 

                                 CHRISTOPHER TURNER,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               MCCARTHY PAYNE, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                     ERRATA SHEET

            The opinion of  this court issued  on October 31, 1995  is amended
        as follows:

            On page 3, line 5 from bottom, delete "Aside from the fact that".

        October 31, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1060 

                                 CHRISTOPHER TURNER,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               MCCARTHY PAYNE, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                      [Hon. Michael Ponsor, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Christopher Turner on brief pro se.
            __________________
            Scott  Harshbarger,  Attorney  General,  and   William  J.  Meade,
            __________________                             __________________
        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.   Christopher Turner,  a Massachusetts
                      ___________

            prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his complaint under

            42 U.S.C.   1983.  We affirm.

                 Turner's complaint  was  filed  on  February  28,  1994.

            Named as defendants were (1) two Assistant District Attorneys

            who had  prosecuted charges  against Turner stemming  from an

            arrest in June  1990 while  Turner was on  parole, (2)  three

            Massachusetts parole officers who later  brought him in on  a

            parole violation  warrant related to that arrest, and (3) the

            Chairperson of  the Massachusetts Parole Board.   The charges

            underlying the June 1990 arrest were dismissed with prejudice

            on  September  19, 1990.    The  essence of  the  complaint's

            allegations is  that use of those  dismissed charges resulted

            in Turner's parole revocation and deprived him of due process

            of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

                 The  district court  found  that the  lawsuit was  filed

            beyond the statute of limitations  and was time-barred.   The

            applicable statute of limitations  for   1983 actions arising

            in Massachusetts requires that  such claims be brought within

            three years.    Street v.  Vose, 936  F.2d 38,  39 (1st  Cir.
                            ______     ____

            1991); Mass. Gen. L. ch. 260,    2A.  Turner does not dispute

            that three years is the correct limitations period.   Rather,

            Turner  argues  that,  for  various  reasons, the  applicable

            period in which to sue should be suspended.  

                                         -3-

                 First,  Turner  claims that  his  status  as a  prisoner

            prevented a  timely filing  of his complaint.   However,  the

            Massachusetts tolling  statute, Mass. Gen.  L. ch. 260,    7,

            deleted imprisonment as  a tolling condition  in 1987.1   Id.
                                                                      ___

            at  40-41 & n.4.   In addition, assuming  that Turner's claim

            accrued  between June  14,  1990, when  he was  arrested, and

            September 19, 1990, when those charges were dismissed, Turner

            has not been continuously  incarcerated since then.  Turner's

            filings  indicate  that after  the  charges  were dropped  in

            September 1990, he was  released on parole in  December 1990,

            and remained on supervised release until September 1991, when

            his parole was revoked.

                 Second,  Turner  contends that  he  was  unaware of  the

            pertinent   limitations  period  because   of  the  allegedly

            inadequate law library and  legal assistance available at the

            Disciplinary  Department Unit at  M.C.I. Cedar  Junction, the

            restricted  unit where he  was confined  for over  two years.

            Turner appears  to claim that such  conditions of confinement

            were a legal disability sufficient to toll the running of the

            three year  limitations period.  While  equitable tolling has

                                
            ____________________

            1.  To the  extent that Turner contends  that the limitations
            period should  be tolled  under Mass. Gen.  L. ch.  260,    7
            because of mental incompetence, that claim was not before the
            district  court and no basis for such  a claim appears in the
            record.  In the  same vein, Turner's reliance on  Wheatley v.
                                                              ________
            AT  &  T Co.,  418  Mass. 394,  636  N.E. 2d  265  (1994), is
            ____________
            misplaced.    Wheatley  held  that  an  equivocal  employment
                          ________
            termination notice did not trigger the running of the statute
            of limitations. 

                                         -4-

            been  applied in   1983  cases, see, e.g.,  Lown v. Brimeyer,
                                            ___  ____   ____    ________

            956 F.2d  780, 782 (8th Cir.),  cert. denied, 113  S. Ct. 176
                                            _____ ______

            (1992); Smith v. Chicago Heights, 951 F.2d 834, 839 (7th Cir.
                    _____    _______________

            1992), the application of the doctrine is inappropriate here.

            Turner states  that after his  return to prison  he consulted

            with  two attorneys, and, moreover, does  not allege that his

            access  to the prison law library was denied or restricted at

            anytime or that it  did not contain the basic tools for legal

            research.  See Wilson v. Geisen, 956 F.2d  738, 742 (7th Cir.
                       ___ ______    ______

            1992).   In  short, Turner  failed to  show that  despite his

            diligence, he could not obtain the information needed to file

            his  complaint on time.  See Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,
                                     ___ ____    _______________________

            920  F.2d 446, 451-52 (7th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S.
                                                   _____ ______

            1261 (1991).

                 Since Turner's claims--based on events  that occurred in

            1990--accrued more than  three years prior  to the filing  of

            this complaint in February 1994, they were properly dismissed

            by the district court as time-barred.

                 Accordingly,  the judgment  of  the  district  court  is

            affirmed.   The defendants'  motion to dismiss  the appeal as
            ________

            untimely is denied as moot.
                        ______

                                         -5-