Court Opinion

ID: 2964378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:24:48.054379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:54.977162
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1074

                                     BARRY BROWN,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               CITY OF BOSTON, ET AL.,

                                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 Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Elliott  Fine  and  Elliott  Fine  and  Associates  on  brief  for
            _____________       ______________________________
        appellant.
            John  M. Townsend,  General Counsel,  Joan T.  Kennedy,  Assistant
            _________________                     ________________
        General Counsel, Merita A. Hopkins,  Corporation Counsel, and Kevin S.
                         _________________                            ________
        McDermott, Assistant Corporation Counsel, on brief for appellees.
        _________

                                 ____________________

                                   October 15, 1996
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   Upon  careful review  of  the briefs  and
                 ___________

            record,  it  clearly appears  that  this  appeal presents  no

            substantial question,  and we  perceive no reason  to reverse

            the judgment from which plaintiff appeals.  

                 Specifically,  we  agree  with the  district  court that

            plaintiff's  allegations of  negligence were  insufficient to

            state a federal  claim.   See Daniels v.  Williams, 474  U.S.
                                      ___ _______     ________

            327, 331-33  (1986) (no constitutional due  process claim was

            stated against  prison  officials for  "negligent failure  to

            protect");  Manarite v.  City of  Springfield, 957  F.2d 953,
                        ________     ____________________

            957-59 (1st Cir.)  (dismissing   1983 claims where police did

            not act  with "deliberate  indifference"), cert. denied,  506
                                                       ____________

            U.S.  837   (1992).    Even  plaintiff's   sketchy  claim  of

            harassment  by  the prison  staff  was grounded  in  the same

            insufficient allegations of negligence underlying the rest of

            his complaint.   On that  basis, the district  court properly

            determined that  defendants were entitled to  judgment on any

            federal claims. 

                 The  district  court  also properly  determined  that it

            would not  exercise pendent  jurisdiction over  any remaining

            state claims, once the federal claims were dismissed.  See 28
                                                                   ___

            U.S.C.   1367(c)(3) (district court  may decline supplemental

            jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has

            original jurisdiction); Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill,
                                    __________________________    ______

            484 U.S.  343, 350 (1988)  (district court has  discretion to

            retain   or   dismiss  the   remaining  state   claims,  upon

            consideration  of factors such  as comity,  judicial economy,

            convenience, and  fairness); Roche v. John  Hancock Mut. Life
                                         _____    _______________________

            Ins. Co., 81 F.3d 249, 257 (1st Cir. 1996) (same).   No abuse
            ________

            of that discretion is apparent  here.  Although plaintiff may

            have preferred a remand  to the state court, in light  of the

            tolling provision of 28  U.S.C.   1367(d), he was  not harmed

            by  the dismissal.  See Edmondson & Gallagher v. Alban Towers
                                ___ _____________________    ____________

            Tenants Ass'n, 48 F.3d 1260, 1267 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (  1367(d)
            _____________

            tolls the state  statute of  limitations on  any state  claim

            over   which  a  federal  court  has  exercised  supplemental

            jurisdiction  until  30 days  after  its  dismissal and  thus

            reduces the  concern that plaintiffs would  lose their claims

            if their case were dismissed).

                 We note that, while this appeal was pending (and without

            following  the procedure set forth  in Puerto Rico  v. SS Zoe
                                                   ___________     ______

            Colocotroni,  601 F.2d  39,  42 (1st  Cir. 1979)),  plaintiff
            ___________

            asked the  district court to vacate the judgment of dismissal

            and remand the case to the state court.  Plaintiff apparently

            believed that the  statute of limitations had expired  on his

            dismissed  state law claims and that he could not refile them

            in state court.  By orders  dated July 16, 1996, the district

            court granted  plaintiff's  motions and  remanded  the  case.

            Defendants have moved for reconsideration or clarification of

            those orders, but  the district  court has not  yet acted  on

                                         -3-

            that  motion.    In  other  words,  the  district  court  has

            purported to vacate the  very judgment that is now  before us

            on appeal.

                 For the purpose of this appeal, we consider the July 16,

            1996, orders to be  nullities.  See Toscano v.  Chandris, 934
                                            ___ _______     ________

            F.2d 383, 387  (1st Cir.  1991) (giving no  effect to  orders

            entered  without compliance  with the  Colocotroni procedure;
                                                   ___________

            "[i]f  courts did  not  demand that  litigants recognize  and

            respect jurisdictional borders, the judicial system  would be

            adrift  in  a  sea   of  competing  decrees  and  duplicative

            proceedings").     Once  our  mandate  issues,  however,  the

            district court may act  on plaintiff's post-judgment  motions

            and defendants'  motion for reconsideration.    Should either

            party desire  to appeal from  any such subsequent  rulings, a

            separate notice of appeal must be filed.

                 The  judgment appealed from  is affirmed, and appellees'
                                                 ________

            motion to  be heard at oral argument is denied.  See 1st Cir.
                                                    ______   ___

            Loc. R. 27.1.

                                         -4-