Court Opinion

ID: 2963460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:10:09.605985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:45.460424
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          May 25, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1152

                                       J. DOE,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                 HARVARD UNIVERSITY,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________
            J. Doe on brief pro se.
            ______
            Robert  W. Iuliano, Office  of the  General Counsel,  on brief for
            __________________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.       Appellant  J.  Doe  appeals  the
                      ___________

            dismissal   of  her  suit   against  Harvard   University  as

            frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.   1915(d).  Doe also alleges

            that the district court  erred in denying her request  for an

            extension of time to reply to the court order of December 20,

            1994, requiring  her to show  cause, within twenty  days, why

            her  case should not be dismissed.  Finally, she asserts that

            the  district court  judge should  have recused  himself from

            this case.

                 Section 1915(d) provides  the district court  discretion

            to dismiss an in forma pauperis action where, inter alia, the
                          __ _____ ________               _____ ____

            claim is  "based on an indisputably  meritless legal theory."

            Neitzke v.  Williams, 490  U.S.  319, 325  (1989); Watson  v.
            _______     ________                               ______

            Caton, 984  F.2d 537, 539  (1st Cir.  1993).  In  the instant
            _____

            case,  each  of the  four claims  raised  by Doe  was legally

            meritless.  

                 Two  claims arise out of the same series of events which

            formed the basis of Doe's previously dismissed action against

            Harvard.1   Although  Doe raises different legal  theories in

            the instant case,  her claims are nevertheless barred  by the

            doctrine of res judicata since  they involve the same parties
                        ___ ________

            and arise  "from the same set  of operative facts."   Kale v.
                                                                  ____

            Combined Insurance Co., 924 F.2d 1161, 1166 (1st Cir.), cert.
            _____________________                                   ____

                                
            ____________________

            1.  This court affirmed the district court dismissal of Doe's
            prior  action in  an  unpublished opinion  dated October  12,
            1994.

            denied,  502  U.S.  816  (1991).    Repetitious  actions  are
            ______

            appropriate for dismissal pursuant  to section 1915(d).  See,
                                                                     ___

            e.g., Aziz v. Burrows,  976 F.2d 1158, 1158 (8th  Cir. 1992);
            ___   ____    _______

            Wilson  v. Lynaugh,  878  F.2d  846,  850 (5th  Cir.),  cert.
            ______     _______                                      ____

            denied, 493 U.S. 969 (1989).
            ______

                 Doe's claim  pursuant to  the Family  Educational Rights

            and Privacy  Act  [FERPA],  20 U.S.C.     1232,  is  likewise

            without  legal merit since  FERPA does  not create  a private

            right of action.  See, e.g., Fay v.  South Colonie Cent. Sch.
                              ___  ___   ___     ________________________

            Dist., 802 F.2d 21, 33 (2d Cir. 1986).  
            ____

                 Finally, Doe's  allegation that  Harvard  was guilty  of

            civil  contempt for  violating a  court order  issued in  the

            prior case cannot constitute  an independent cause of action.

            See, e.g., D. Patrick Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 8 F.3d 455, 459
            ___  ___   ______________     _____________

            (7th  Cir. 1993) ("there is  no such thing  as an independent

            cause  of action  for  civil contempt")  (quoting Blalock  v.
                                                              _______

            United States, 844 F.2d 1546, 1550 (11th Cir. 1988)).
            _____________

                 Furthermore,  we find  no  error in  the  denial by  the

            district court of Doe's  request for an extension of  time in

            which  to file her  response to the show  cause order.  Doe's

            claim that the district judge  should have recused himself is

            neither  supported by  the record nor  is it  properly before

            this court since it was  not raised below.  See In  re Abijoe
                                                        ___ _____________

            Realty  Corp.,   943  F.2d   121,  126-27  (1st   Cir.  1991)
            ____________

                                         -3-

            (dismissing  disqualification  claim not  raised  in district

            court).

                 Affirmed.
                 ________

                                         -4-