Court Opinion

ID: 2963734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:26.182674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:29.416744
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          December 11, 1995     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                             
                                 ____________________

          No. 95-1701 

                                   BERNARD M. BANE,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                             REGISTRY OF MOTOR VEHICLES,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

               Bernard M. Bane on brief pro se.
               _______________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per   Curiam.     The   district   court  dismissed
                      ____________

            plaintiff's complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.   1915(d),

            after informing  plaintiff that his  complaint was  deficient

            and  giving him  an  opportunity to  supply applicable  legal

            authority  to support  why  his action  should  proceed.   We

            affirm the dismissal.

                      Plaintiff has  failed to show a  deprivation of any

            federal or constitutional right, an essential element  of a  

            1983  cause of  action.   None of plaintiff's  filings allege

            facts  indicating  that  Massachusetts  fails  to  provide  a

            constitutionally adequate remedy to redress the purported due

            process  deprivation, here,  the non-renewals  of plaintiff's

            license  to operate  and  automobile registration.   Such  an

            allegation is critical to a procedural due process claim, and

            its  omission  warrants dismissal  of  that  claim.   Rumford
                                                                  _______

            Pharmacy v. City of  East Providence, 970 F.2d 996,  999 (1st
            ________    ________________________

            Cir. 1992).

                      Mass. Gen. L. ch.  90,   20A 1/2, clearly  provides

            predeprivation  safeguards  to avert  erroneous non-renewals.

            It is  the  issuance  of  parking  tickets  that  triggers  a

            potential  non-renewal.    Aside from  the  unelaborated  and

            conclusory  assertion  that    20A  1/2  is unconstitutional,

            plaintiff  failed completely  to indicate  in what  way those

            statutory  safeguards  are   inadequate  or  what  additional

            process  is required to challenge  the ticketing in the first

                                         -2-

            instance.    Given the  express  provisions of  ch.  20A 1/2,

            adequate predeprivation  process was available.   See Lowe v.
                                                              ___ ____

            Scott, 959 F.2d 323, 344 (1st Cir. 1992).
            _____

                      Further, Massachusetts appears to  provide adequate

            postdeprivation tort  remedies.  Smith v. Massachusetts Dep't
                                             _____    ___________________

            of  Correction,   936  F.2d  1390,  1402   (1st  Cir.  1991).
            ______________

            Plaintiff  has failed to allege  that a state-law tort remedy

            could not adequately cure the  alleged wrong.  Without  facts

            showing  the inadequacy of  the  Massachusetts predeprivation

            and postdeprivation remedies, plaintiff cannot state a   1983

            procedural due  process claim.1   Rumford Pharmacy,  970 F.2d
                                              ________________

            at  1000;  see  also  Campo   v.  New  York  City  Employee's
                       ___  ____  _____       ___________________________

            Retirement  System,  843 F.2d  96,  101-02  (2d Cir.),  cert.
            __________________                                      _____

            denied, 488 U.S. 889  (1988) (plaintiffs cannot manufacture a
            ______

               1983  claim  by  pointing to  allegedly  defective  agency

            procedure while  ignoring other state process  that serves to

            redress administrative error).  Because plaintiff has  failed

            to plead an actionable  claim of deprivation of due  process,

            his ancillary    1985  conspiracy claim necessarily  fails as

                                
            ____________________

            1.  The   conduct   here  involved   is   hardly  "conscience
            shocking",  should  plaintiff  be   attempting  to  assert  a
            substantive due process  claim.  See, Senra v.  Cunningham, 9
                                             ___  _____     __________
            F.3d 168, 173 (1st Cir. 1993).

                                         -3-

            well.   Rumford  Pharmacy, 970  F.2d at  1000 n.7;  Torres v.
                    _________________                           ______

            Superintendent of Police,893 F.2d404, 410 n.8(1st Cir.1990).2
            ________________________

                      In   short,  despite   an  opportunity   to  supply

            additional substance to the due process claim, see Purvis  v.
                                                           ___ ______

            Ponte,  929 F.2d  822,  826 (1st  Cir.  1991), the  complaint
            _____

            lacked sufficient allegations that  constitutionally adequate

            state  law  remedies were  not  available,  and was  properly

            dismissed.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                
            ____________________

            2.  To the extent that plaintiff's conspiracy theory attempts
            to rely  on  grounds  other than due  process, such  as equal
            protection  or the  First Amendment,  plaintiff's speculative
            and improbable conspiracy claim--that he has been singled out
            by defendants because of his previous litigation or political
            views--fails to identify facts that could support the kind of
            racial  or class-based  animus required  to obtain    1985(3)
            relief,   and  is   plainly  without   merit.     Griffin  v.
                                                              _______
            Breckenridge,  403  U.S. 88,  102  (1971);  see also  Rumford
            ____________                                ___ ____  _______
            Pharmacy, 970 F.2d at 1000 n.9.       
            ________

                                         -4-