Court Opinion

ID: 2961563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:44:46.622653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:41:48.918075
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        September 29, 1992      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                 ____________________        No. 92-1163                                    HAVEN TRIPLETT,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                          PHILLIP W. JOHNSON, ETC., ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. A. David Mazzone, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,                                     ____________________                              and Selya, Circuit Judge.                                         _____________                                 ____________________            Haven Triplett on brief pro se.            ______________            Scott  Harshbarger,  Attorney  General,  and  Susan  B.  Carnduff,            __________________                            ___________________        Assistant  Attorney  General,  on  Motion  for  Summary  Decision  and        Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Decision, for appellees.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  Plaintiff is not entitled to relief in                      __________            the  present  forum  concerning  his  complaint   that  Mount            Wachusett Community  College (MWCC) wrongfully  retained PELL            grant  funds because  no private right  of action  is implied            under the PELL Grant  Program.  L'ggrke v. Benkula,  966 F.2d                                            _______    _______            1346 (1st Cir. 1992).                      As for plaintiff's  complaints that MWCC  cancelled            courses,  refused free  CLEP tests,  failed to  credit Elkins            Institute  courses,  and  did  not  issue  a  certificate  of            completion,  plaintiff has  failed  to state  any  cognizable            federal claim.   No  state statute or  regulation confers  on            plaintiff  a property  or liberty  interest in  receiving any            particular   instructional  course,  college  credits,  or  a            certificate of completion.  To  the contrary, the statutes on            which plaintiff relies  grant broad discretion to  defendants            to determine what  types of programs to  offer.  Nor  need we            determine whether MWCC violated any contractual agreement  it            may have had with plaintiff because a mere breach of contract            of the sort claimed would not give rise to a   1983 claim for            deprivation of property without  due process.  San Bernardino                                                           ______________            Physicians'  Services Medical  Group, Inc.  v. County  of San            __________________________________________     ______________            Bernardino,  825  F.2d  1404  (9th  Cir.  1987);  Jimenez  v.            __________                                        _______            Almodovar,  650 F.2d 363, 370 (1st Cir. 1981) ("A mere breach            _________            of contractual right is not a deprivation of property without            constitutional  due  process  of law  .  .  .  .   Otherwise,            ______________                                         -2-            virtually every controversy  involving an  alleged breach  of            contract  by a  government or  a governmental  institution or            agency or instrumentality would be a constitutional case.").                      Affirmed.                      ________                                         -3-