Court Opinion

ID: 2963910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:19.36694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:33.638699
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1828

                                   CALVIN F. TATE,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                   LARRY E. DUBOIS,
                                   ELEEN ELIAS AND
                                      IAN TINK,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Calvin F. Tate on brief pro se.
            ______________
            Scott  Harshbarger,  Attorney  General,  and  Gregory  I  Massing,
            __________________                            ___________________
        Assistant  Attorney General, on  brief for appellees,  Eleen Elias and
        Ian Tink.
            Nancy  Ankers  White,  Special  Assistant  Attorney  General,  and
            ____________________
        Daniel  A.  Less, Counsel,  Department  of  Correction, on  brief  for
        ________________
        appellee, Larry E. DuBois.

                                 ____________________

                                    March 8, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Plaintiff-appellant, who was committed
                      __________

            in 1983 to  the Bridgewater,  Massachusetts Treatment  Center

            for  the Sexually  Dangerous, appeals  the  dismissal of  his

            civil rights  complaint under 42  U.S.C.   1983 as  barred by

            the  statute of  limitations.    The  district  court  fairly

            construed the  complaint as  seeking damages for  appellant's

            transfer,  in 1990, to M.C.I., Cedar Junction where allegedly

            he  was held  without  treatment  for more  than  a year,  in

            violation of state law governing the indeterminate commitment

            of sexually dangerous  persons under Mass. Gen. L.  ch. 123A.

            Correctly   applying  federal   law   standards,  the   court

            determined that the  alleged cause of  action accrued at  the

            latest on September  25, 1991, when the  state court declared

            the  transfer  improper  and ordered  plaintiff's  return  to

            Bridgewater.  Appellant's continued  incarceration at M.C.I.,

            Cedar Junction  for a period  of time after the  accrual date

            did not  trigger a  new limitations  period  because in  fact

            appellant had requested or approved the stay of his return to

            Bridgewater while  he petitioned  for release  on the  ground

            that he was "no longer  sexually dangerous."  Thus, the court

            properly held  this complaint  barred by  the borrowed  state

            limitations period of three years  for the commencement of an

            action sounding in tort under 42 U.S.C.   1983.

                      Plaintiff argues on appeal that his suit was timely

            commenced by  his earlier filing  in the district court  of a

                                         -2-

            petition for a  writ of habeas corpus, which  he describes as

            "identical"  to the  instant complaint.1    We have  compared
                                                   1

            plaintiff's  pending  petition  for  habeas  relief with  the

            complaint  in  this  action.   Without  attempting  a precise

            characterization of  his allegations,  we  conclude that  the

            pleadings are significantly  different from one another.   In

            the  habeas petition plaintiff seeks release from his current

            imprisonment at the Bridgewater treatment center.  The thrust

            of his civil  rights complaint, as  we have said, is  a quest

            for damages for  the period during which he  was incarcerated

            without  treatment at M.C.I.,  Cedar Junction.   Although the

            civil rights complaint  also contains a demand  for immediate

            release, it  was properly  dismissed without prejudice  since

            habeas corpus  is the exclusive  remedy for a  state prisoner

            seeking release from  his current confinement.   See Heck  v.
                                                             ___ ____

            Humphrey, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2369 (1994).  Any implied claim for
            ________

            damages  based on  the  alleged  invalidity  of  the  current

            confinement also was  properly dismissed, as premature.   Id.
                                                                      ___

            at 2373.   The district court's observations in  footnote one

                                
            ____________________

               1   The  habeas proceeding  was closed in  November, 1994,
               1
            apparently  due to  a clerical  error.   It  was reopened  on
            plaintiff's motion during the  pendency of this appeal.   See
                                                                      ___
            Tate v.  Commonwealth, No.  94-cv-10716, (D.  Mass. Oct.  13,
            ____     ____________
            1995) (endorsed order).   Although  plaintiff represented  to
            the district court that he  would withdraw this appeal if his
            habeas case was  reopened, he has not sought  to dismiss this
            appeal.

                                         -3-

            of   its  memorandum  order   do  not  require   a  different

            conclusion.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -4-