Court Opinion

ID: 2963689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:13:57.833208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:19.877050
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          November 6, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                             

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-2243 

                                    DANNY M. ROSS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                   MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Danny M. Ross on brief pro se.
            _____________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.   Plaintiff-appellant  Danny  M.  Ross
                      ___________

            filed a  42 U.S.C.   1983 action pro se and in forma pauperis
                                             ___ __     __ _____ ________

            against the Massachusetts  Commission Against  Discrimination

            (MCAD)  alleging that MCAD had deprived him of due process of

            the   law  by   mishandling  his   complaint   of  employment

            discrimination.  He sought damages in the amount  of $500,000

            for alleged monetary losses, emotional and mental distress. 

                      The  district  court  dismissed  the  complaint  as

            frivolous under 28 U.S.C.   1915(d), inasmuch as the Eleventh

            Amendment indisputably bars actions for money damages against

            an arm of the Commonwealth  in the absence of a waiver.   See
                                                                      ___

            Will  v.  Michigan Dep't  of State  Police,  491 U.S.  58, 66
            ____      ________________________________

            (1989);  Johnson v.  Rodriguez, 943 F.2d  104, 109  (1st Cir.
                     _______     _________

            1991)  (as a  state  agency, MCAD  is immune  from  a    1983

            action), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1063 (1992); see also Neitzke
                     ____________                        ________ _______

            v.  Williams, 490 U.S. at  319, 325 (1989)  (a district court
                ________

            should dismiss a claim as frivolous under   1915(d) where the

            defendant  is clearly  immune  from suit).    The court  also

            denied, as "moot," a motion to amend the complaint which Ross

            filed  almost  a month  after  the  dismissal.   This  appeal

            followed.1  

                      Ross  argues  that  the  court  did  not  read  his

            complaint liberally enough because his additional prayer, for

                                
            ____________________

            1.    In light of the disposition of this appeal, we need not
            inquire into the timeliness of Ross' challenge to the initial
            dismissal. 

            "such  other  relief as  this  court deems  fit,"  might have

            included  an injunction.  He also challenges the denial of an

            opportunity to amend the complaint.

                      Dismissals  for frivolousness  under  28  U.S.C.   

            1915(d) are  reviewed only  for abuse of  discretion, "taking

            into  account the  liberal pleading  standards applicable  to

            complaints filed by pro se plaintiffs."  Watson v. Caton, 984
                                ___ __               ______    _____

            F.2d  537, 539 (1st  Cir. 1993) (citing  Denton v. Hernandez,
                                                     ______    _________

            504 U.S.  25  (1992)).   There was  no abuse  in the  court's

            failure to  conjure up all conceivable  unpled allegations to

            save a legally baseless complaint.  See McDonald v. Hall, 610
                                                ___ ________    ____

            F.2d 16, 19  (1st Cir. 1979).  Nor was  the court required to

            provide  an  opportunity  to  amend  prior  to  dismissing  a

            complaint which had no arguable basis in the law.  See Street
                                                               ___ ______

            v. Fair, 918  F.2d 269, 272 (1st Cir. 1990).   Dismissal of a
               ____

            complaint  for frivolousness due to  a lack of subject matter

            jurisdiction is not a dismissal "on the  merits."  Id.  Under
                                                               ___

              1915(d), too, it does not prejudice the filing of a  "paid"

            complaint.  Denton, 504 U.S. at 34.
                        ______

                      The judgment is affirmed.   Appellant's "Motion for
                                      ________

            review  by  U.S.  Attorney   General  and  for  allowance  of

            Supplemental Reading" is denied.
                                     _______

                                         -3-