Court Opinion

ID: 2961918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:49:46.295193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:21.764833
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          May 4, 1993                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 92-2189                               BERENICE MARY GORCZAKOSKI,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                              U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                       [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]                                           ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                              Torruella, Cyr and Boudin,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Berenice Mary Gorczakoski on brief pro se.            _________________________            A. John  Pappalardo, United  States Attorney,  William L.  Parker,            ___________________                            __________________        Assistant United  States Attorney, Judith E.  Kramer, Deputy Solicitor                                           _________________        of Labor, James  D. Henry, Associate Solicitor,  Beverly I. Dankowitz,                  _______________                        ____________________        Attorney, and Andrea S. Grill,  Attorney, United States Department  of                      _______________        Labor, on Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition, for        appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.   We  find no  abuse  of discretion  in the                 ___________            district  court's  dismissal  of  the  instant  complaint  as            "frivolous"  under 28 U.S.C.   1915(d).  See, e.g., Denton v.                                                     ___  ____  ______            Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728,  1734 (1992) (  1915(d) dismissal            _________            properly  reviewed  for  abuse  of  discretion);  Neitzke  v.                                                              _______            Williams, 490 U.S.  319, 325 (1989)  (complaint is  frivolous            ________            "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact");            Watson v.  Caton, 984 F.2d 537,  539 (1st Cir. 1993).   It is            ______     _____            uncontested that  defendant, upon determining that  it lacked            jurisdiction   over   the  matter,   transferred  plaintiff's            complaint to the EEOC.   Plaintiff has provided no  reason to            suggest  that  these   actions  were  other   than  in   full            conformance  with applicable  law.   See, e.g.,  29 C.F.R.                                                    ___  ____            1691.5 (1992).  And even if it were otherwise, we perceive no            arguable  basis for  subjecting defendant  to liability  as a            result of any improprieties in its processing of  plaintiff's            complaint.  See, e.g., Francis-Sobel v. University of  Maine,                        ___  ____  _____________    ____________________            597  F.2d 15, 18  (1st Cir.)  (EEOC's alleged  mishandling of            grievance did  not  "support  the  implication  of  a  damage            remedy"), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 949 (1979); see also Johnson                      ____________                       ________ _______            v. Rodriguez,  943  F.2d  104,  108-09  (1st  Cir.)  (alleged               _________            irregularities   in   processing   of  complaint   by   state            antidiscrimination commission did  not implicate due  process            interest), cert. denied, 112 S.  Ct. 949 (1992).  As we  find                       ____________            no reason  to believe that  the deficiencies  in the  instant            complaint "could be remedied through more specific pleading,"            Denton, 112 S.  Ct. at  1734, dismissal under    1915(d)  was            ______            warranted.                 Affirmed.                 ________                                         -3-