Court Opinion

ID: 2964591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:28:00.158734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:57.912791
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1979 

                                    JUSTIN HOLMES,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                LARRY DUBOIS, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ___________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                        Cyr, Stahl, and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                               ______________

                                 ____________________

            Justin Holmes on brief pro se.
            _____________
            Nancy  Ankers  White,  Special  Assistant  Attorney  General,  and
            ____________________
        Charles   M.  Wyzanski,  Senior   Litigation  Counsel,  Department  of
        ______________________
        Correction, on motion for summary disposition for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                    MARCH 24, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.    As   the  defendants  now  concede,  the
                 ___________

            plaintiff's action is not time-barred.  The complaint, having

            been  submitted  along  with  the  in  forma  pauperis  (IFP)

            application on August 30, 1995, within the three year statute

            of  limitations period,  was  thereby timely.    See Dean  v.
                                                             ___ ____

            Veterans Admin. Regional Office, 943 F.2d 667, 671  (6th Cir.
            _______________________________

            1991)  (holding that,  at  least in  the  case where  an  IFP

            application is subsequently  granted, a  complaint is  deemed

            timely  filed,  for  statute  of  limitations   purposes,  if

            presented  to   the  district   court  along  with   the  IFP

            application  within  the  statute  of   limitations  period),

            vacated on  other grounds,  503 U.S.  902 (1992);  Gilardi v.
            _________________________                          _______

            Schroeder, 833 F.2d 1226, 1233 (7th Cir. 1987) (same); Martin
            _________                                              ______

            v. Demma,  831 F.2d 69, 71  (5th Cir. 1987) (same);  see also
               _____                                             ________

            Jarrett v.  US Sprint Communications  Co., 22  F.3d 256,  259
            _______     _____________________________

            (10th  Cir.) (same)  (dicta), cert.  denied, 115  S.  Ct. 368
                                          _____________

            (1994).

                 They request  that we  affirm nonetheless on  the ground

            that  the complaint is meritless.  We decline to consider the

            merits,  leaving that  review to  the  district court  in the

            first instance, both because  it is the norm and  because the

            precise  scope  of the  complaint is  unclear.   In  an order

            (apart  from the  judgment  on the  pleadings  on statute  of

            limitations  grounds)  not  addressed  by  either  party, the

            district  court, with  the  agreement of  the plaintiff,  see
                                                                      ___

                                         -2-

            documents  24  &  25,  dismissed  the  complaint  as  against

            defendants  DuBois,  Duval,  Mahtesian,  and  Metrano.    The

            dismissal was  recited to  be with  prejudice and,  while the

            subsequent  judgment referenced  both the dismissal  order of

            June 26, 1996  and the grant of the judgment on the pleadings

            of  July 23,  1996, plaintiff's  notice of  appeal referenced

            only the July 23  ruling.  Yet,  insofar as the parties  have

            addressed  the underlying  merits  of the  complaint on  this

            appeal,  the  arguments  appear   to  presume  that,  if  the

            complaint is  not time-barred,  the alleged liability  of all

            original defendants remains  at issue.   We leave  it to  the

            district  court,  upon  remand,  to  resolve,  in  the  first

            instance, the current scope of the complaint.

                 Vacated and remanded.  No costs.
                 _____________________

                                         -3-