Court Opinion

ID: 2963724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:16.906872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:18.588100
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        October 17, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1064 

                                  MAURICE D. YOUNG,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                             KNOX COUNTY DEPUTY, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                    [Hon. Gene Carter, Chief U.S. District Judge]
                                       _________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Maurice D. Young on brief pro se.
            ________________
            William R. Fisher and Monaghan, Leahy,  Hochadel & Libby on  brief
            _________________     __________________________________
        for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Pro se plaintiff Maurice Young appeals
                      __________   ___ __

            a  district court  judgment that  dismissed his  complaint as

            frivolous  within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.  1915(d).  We have

            thoroughly  reviewed the  record and  the parties'  briefs on

            appeal.  We are persuaded  that the district court's judgment

            was correct.  The  plaintiff's amended complaint purported to

            state  claims under  42 U.S.C.   1983 for  violations  of the

            Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' due  process requirement and

            the  Fourth Amendment  right  to be  free from  "unreasonable

            seizures."  These claims were based on the alleged actions of

            defendant Hansen, the  deputy sheriff who  arrested plaintiff

            and allegedly  committed perjury while testifying against the

            plaintiff at his state criminal trial.

                      Insofar as plaintiff seeks  to recover for Hansen's

            alleged perjury, his claim is barred by Briscoe v. LaHue, 460
                                                    _______    _____

            U.S.  325 (1983)(holding all  witnesses are absolutely immune

            from  civil  suit  under   1983,  including  those  who  give

            perjured testimony).  Insofar  as the complaint seeks damages

            for violation of plaintiff's  Fifth and Fourteenth  Amendment

            rights to procedural due process, the claim is barred because

            the  plaintiff  has  adequate  remedies at  state  law.  "[A]

            procedural  due  process claim  may  not  be redressed  under

            section 1983 where an adequate state remedy exists."  Reid v.
                                                                  ____

            New Hampshire,  56 F.3d 332, 341  (1st Cir. 1995).   As Maine
            _____________

            recognizes the common law torts of false arrest and malicious

                                         -2-

            prosecution, see, e.g.,  Nadeau v. State,  395 A.2d 107,  116
                         ___  ____   ______    _____

            (Me.  1978);  Qualey v.  Town of  Wilton,  540 A.2d  479 (Me.
                          ______     _______________

            1988), plaintiff  has adequate post-deprivation  remedies and

            may not  recover for the alleged violation  of procedural due

            process under 42 U.S.C.  1983.  See Reid, 56 F.3d at 341.  To
                                            ___ ____

            the extent  that plaintiff alleges violations  of substantive

            due  process, Albright v. Oliver, 114 S. Ct. 807 (1994), bars
                          ________    ______

            his claim.                                    Plaintiff's

            claim  for the  alleged violation  of the  Fourth Amendment's

            prohibition  against unreasonable  seizures  is barred  as  a

            matter of law  for different reasons.  The  plaintiff alleged

            that defendant Hansen arrested him without probable cause for

            operating under  the influence (OUI) and  operating after his

            license had been  revoked (OAR).  Plaintiff  has submitted an

            arrest report which indicates that Hansen arrested him on the

            foregoing  charges  and  for  illegal  attachment of  license

            plates.  The plaintiff claims that after a jury deadlocked at

            his  criminal trial  on the  OUI and  OAR charges,  the state

            reduced these charges to  illegally attaching license  plates

            and allowing his motor vehicle to be driven (presumably, with

            the  illegal plates).    The plaintiff does  not contend that

            probable  cause  was   lacking  for  these  latter   charges.

            "Probable  cause need only exist as to any offense that could

            be  charged under the circumstances." Barna  v. City of Perth
                                                  _____     _____________

            Amboy,  42 F.3d 809, 819 (3rd Cir.  1994).  See also Barry v.
            _____                                       ___ ____ _____

                                         -3-

            Fowler, 902  F.2d 770, 773  n. 5 (9th Cir.  1990); Edwards v.
            ______                                             _______

            City   of  Philadelphia,   860  F.2d   568,  576   (3rd  Cir.
            _______________________

            1988)(similar).    Where  plaintiff  does  not  contend  that

            probable  cause  was  lacking  for  his  arrest  for  illegal

            attachment  of  license  plates,  he cannot  recover  for  an

            unreasonable seizure,  even if probable cause  was lacking on

            the OUI and OAR charges.  Accordingly, as plaintiff's federal

            claims lack  an  arguable basis  in law,  they were  properly

            dismissed as  frivolous.  See  Neitzke v. Williams,  490 U.S.
                                      ___  _______    ________

            319, 325 (1989).  

                      There was  no separate discussion of  the state law

            claims by the  district court.   As plaintiff  has failed  to

            allege claims  that would  support federal  jurisdiction, his

            state law claims were  also subject to dismissal for  lack of

            jurisdiction.   See United Mine  Workers v.  Gibbs, 383  U.S.
                            ___ ____________________     _____

            715,  726-27 (1966).  However,  these claims should have been

            dismissed without  prejudice.  See Figueroa  Ruiz v. Alegria,
                                           ___ ______________    _______

            896 F.2d 645, 650 (1st Cir. 1990).  Accordingly, the judgment

            of the district  court is  affirmed insofar  as it  dismisses
                                       ________

            plaintiff's federal  claims (i.e., counts 1-4  of plaintiff's

            amended complaint) as frivolous.   We vacate the dismissal of
                                                  ______

            plaintiff's  state  law  claims  (i.e., counts  5-13  of  the

            amended  complaint) and remand  with instructions  that these
                                    ______

            claims  be dismissed  without prejudice  for lack  of federal

            jurisdiction.

                                         -4-

                      It is so ordered.
                      ________________

                                         -5-