Court Opinion

ID: 2965224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:37:31.066921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:06.247481
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1796

                                    LEEVONN CLOUD,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               COMMUNITY WORKS, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________
                          Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. 
                                           ______________

                                 ____________________

            Leevonn Cloud on brief pro se.
            _____________
            Judith Malone,  Joseph F.  Hardcastle and  Palmer &  Dodge LLP  on
            _____________   _____________________      ___________________
        brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                           
                                  FEBRUARY 25, 1998
                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.    Plaintiff-appellant  Leevonn  Cloud
                      ___________

            appeals pro  se from the  dismissal of his  amended complaint
                    ___  __

            for failure to state a  claim of race discrimination under 42

            U.S.C.   1981.  We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand

            for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                      The instant  complaint recounts  events surrounding

            Cloud's termination from employment as a campaign manager for

            Community  Works.     As   amended,  the   complaint  alleges

            violations of 42 U.S.C.    1981 against Community  Works; its

            Board  of Directors; Patricia  Williams, its former Executive

            Director;  Frances Froehlich,  its  former Interim  Executive

            Director; Robert  Paret, a member of the  Board of Directors;

            and  eleven  other  individual  members of  the  Board.    In

            addition, the amended complaint  alleges various claims under

            state law.   The  district court dismissed  the    1981 claim

            under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and  it declined jurisdiction

            over the state claims, see 28 U.S.C.   1367(c)(3).1
                                                              1
                                   ___

                                
            ____________________

               1In the district  court, several of the  defendants argued
               1
            that  the complaint  should be  dismissed as  to them  on the
            alternative  ground  that they  were  never properly  served.
            Defendants  do  not  renew  this  argument  on  appeal,  and,
            although  the district court's order of dismissal is arguably
            ambiguous, we construe the dismissal as based solely on  Rule
            12(b)(6).  We note that Cloud is proceeding in forma pauperis
                                                        __ _____ ________
            and that courts  have sometimes found "good  cause" where the
            failure  to  effect  proper service  is  attributable  to the
            United  States Marshal.  See, e.g.,  Dumaguin v. Secretary of
                                     ___  ____   ________    ____________
            Health & Human  Servs., 28 F.3d 1218, 1221  (D.C. Cir. 1994).
            ______________________
            However, on remand the district  court is free to revisit the
            issue  whether a  failure to  effect service  is grounds  for
            dismissal as to one or more of the defendants. 

                                         -2-

                      We  review de novo the dismissal of a complaint for
                                 __ ____

            failure to state  a claim.  Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3
                                        ______    _________

            (1st Cir.  1996).  We  accept the factual allegations  in the

            complaint  as true and  indulge all reasonable  inferences in

            the  plaintiff's  favor.     Id.    Contrary   to  appellees'
                                         ___

            suggestion,   civil  rights  claims  are  not  subject  to  a

            heightened  pleading  requirement.   Moreover,  as  a  pro se
                                                                   ___ __

            plaintiff, Cloud is entitled to have his complaint "liberally

            construed."  Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).
                         _______    ______

                      Even given this generous standard, we are persuaded

            that Cloud has failed to state a claim of race discrimination

            against the bulk  of the defendants.   However, we  reinstate

            his  claim of  discriminatory  termination against  Williams,

            Paret,  and Community  Works.   In  some unspecified  period,

            Williams  allegedly suggested that  Cloud not attend  a fund-

            raising dance because she felt that  he would not fit in with

            the white, "New Age"  people in attendance.  Paret  allegedly

            questioned Cloud's ability  to conduct himself properly  in a

            room full  of white people,  especially white men.   We infer

            from  allegations in  the complaint  that  both Williams  and

            Paret were involved  in the decision to terminate  Cloud.  We

            think  that these  allegations are  sufficient  to survive  a

            motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).2 
                                                  2

                                
            ____________________

               2We have considered the comments alleged to have been made
               2
            by  Froehlich, but  are not  persuaded that  they support  an
            inference of race discrimination.

                                         -3-

                      Our decision foreshadows  nothing about the outcome

            of  this case  should the  pleadings  be tested  in a  prompt

            summary judgment motion; we hold only that dismissal of the  

            1981 claim cannot  be upheld as to all  defendants under Rule

            12(b)(6).    Cloud  has not  specifically  requested  that we

            reinstate his supplemental state  law claims, and  defendants

            suggest that  he is  now pursuing  them in state  court.   On

            remand,  Cloud is  free to  ask  the district  court, in  its

            discretion,  to  exercise  supplemental   jurisdiction.    We

            express no opinion as to the merits of his state law claims. 

             

                      Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for
                      ___________________________________________________

            further proceedings.
            ___________________

                                         -4-