Court Opinion

ID: 2965215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:37:20.07276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:26.847753
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1978

                                  KATHLEEN WALCZAK,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                        MASSACHUSETTS STATE RETIREMENT BOARD,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Richard Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________
                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                                 ____________________

            Kathleen Walczak on brief pro se.
            ________________

                                 ____________________

                                        
                                  FEBRUARY 25, 1998
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  We have carefully reviewed the record,
                      __________

            appellant's brief,  and the  appendices, and  agree with  the

            district  court that the complaint is legally frivolous under

            28 U.S.C.    1915(e)(2)(B)(i).  See Neitzke  v. Williams, 490
                                            ___ _______     ________

            U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989) (a legally frivolous complaint is one

            which  is based on "an indisputably meritless legal theory").

            The judgment  of  that court  is therefore  affirmed for  the

            reason stated by  the court in its Memorandum,  dated June 2,

            1997.   We  add that  the following  claims also  are legally

            frivolous.

                      1.   As with the complaint, appellant's claim under

            the  Americans with  Disabilities Act  ("ADA"),  42 U.S.C.   

            12131 et seq.,  is "inextricably intertwined" with  the state

            court judgments regarding  the denial of her  application for

            accidental  disability   retirement  benefits.     That   is,

            entertaining the claim would require a lower federal court to

            review the state court  judgments.  This is prohibited  under

            the  Rooker-Feldman doctrine.  See District of Columbia Court
                 ______________            ___ __________________________

            of Appeals  v. Feldman, 460  U.S. 462, 476 (1983);  Rooker v.
            __________     _______                              ______

            Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923).
            __________________

                      2.   Even  if  appellant's  Title  VII  claim  were

            amended  to name  the  proper defendant,  it  still would  be

            legally frivolous.   That is, nowhere in her  response to the

            order to show cause, in her brief  filed in this court, or in

            her state  brief is there  any indication that anyone  at the

                                         -2-

            Commission  discriminated against her  on the basis  of race,

            color,  religion, gender, or national origin -- the practices

            outlawed by Title VII.  See 42 U.S.C.    2000e-2(a).  Indeed,
                                    ___

            what does appear  clearly from appellant's pleadings  is that

            her former supervisors had conflicts with appellant and that,

            at least in appellant's view, these conflicts were due to the

            resentment of  one  of the  supervisors  over the  hiring  of

            appellant as  a counselor before that supervisor was hired as

            one.  Personnel actions motivated by personality conflicts or

            cronyism do  not  violate  Title  VII.    See  DeNovellis  v.
                                                      ___  __________

            Shalala, 124 F.3d 298, 306 (1st Cir. 1997).
            _______

                      3.   To  the extent  that  appellant is  asserting,

            under 42 U.S.C.    1983, that the  discrimination she endured

            while employed at the  Commission violated her constitutional

            rights,  her  cause of  action  is barred  by  the three-year

            statute of limitations.  See Street  v. Vose, 936 F.2d 38, 39
                                     ___ ______     ____

            (1st  Cir. 1991) (per  curiam) (the  Massachusetts three-year

            statute  of limitations  applies to     1983 actions,  citing

            M.G.L.c. 260,     2A).   Appellant's  claim accrued,  at  the

            latest,  in August  1987,  when she  became  disabled by  the

            discrimination and quit work.  See id. at 40 (the limitations
                                           ___ ___

            period begins to run when a plaintiff "knows or has reason to

            know  of  the injury  which  is  the  basis of  the  action")

            (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).  Thus, any  

            1983  action  challenging  what happened  during  appellant's

                                         -3-

            tenure at  the Commission  should have been  filed by  August

            1990 in order to be considered timely.

                      4.   Finally, in her response to  the order to show

            cause  why the complaint  should not be  dismissed, appellant

            made   conclusory   allegations   that   the   discrimination

            "continued"  after she  left  the  Commission  and  still  is

            ongoing.    Appellant,  however,  nowhere  identified  anyone

            responsible for  this harassment.  Where a complaint fails to

            name the individual  defendants by name the  complaint should

            not  be dismissed  as frivolous  "if  the allegations  in the
                                              ___________________________

            complaint allow for  the specific persons to  be subsequently
            _____________________________________________________________

            identified with reasonable certainty."  Smith-Bey v. Hospital
            ____________________________________    _________    ________

            Adm'r, 841  F.2d 751, 759  (7th Cir. 1988)  (emphasis added).
            _____

            Because  the  allegations   in  the  response  are   far  too

            conclusory  to  permit   identification  of  any   particular

            defendants with any certainty, the dismissal was not an abuse

            of discretion.   See id. at 758  (a court is not  required to
                             ___ ___

            "invent factual scenarios that cannot be reasonably  inferred

            from the  pleadings").  See also  Macias v. Raul A.,  23 F.3d
                                    ___ ____  ______    _______

            94, 96-97 (5th Cir. 1994) (where a court would be required to

            go beyond  the allegations in a complaint  and speculate that
                                                           _________

            an  in forma  pauperis  plaintiff  might be  able  to make  a
                                               _____

            nonfrivolous claim if he or she were given a second chance to

            amend, the court may dismiss the complaint as frivolous).

                                         -4-

                      The  judgment of  the district  court is  affirmed,
                                                                ________

            except to the  extent that the judgment shall  state that the

            dismissal is "without prejudice."
                          _______ _________

                                         -5-