Court Opinion

ID: 2961898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:49:32.477822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:23.021255
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          May 18, 1993          [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No. 92-2188                                          BERENICE MARY GORCZAKOSKI,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                               MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION                               AGAINST DISCRIMINATION,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                  __________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                       [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]                                           ___________________                                 ___________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                          Torruella and Cyr, Circuit Judges.                                             ______________                                 ___________________               Berenice Mary Gorczakoski on brief pro se.               _________________________               George   P.   Napolitano,  General   Counsel,  Massachusetts               ________________________          Commission Against Discrimination, on brief for appellee.                                  __________________                                  __________________                 Per  Curiam.   We  find no  abuse  of discretion  in the                 ___________            district  court's  dismissal  of  the  instant  complaint  as            "frivolous"  under 28 U.S.C.   1915(d).  See, e.g., Denton v.                                                     ___  ____  ______            Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992) (  1915(d)  dismissal            _________            properly  reviewed  for  abuse  of  discretion);  Neitzke  v.                                                              _______            Williams, 490  U.S. 319,  325 (1989) (complaint  is frivolous            ________            "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact");            Watson v. Caton, 984 F.2d  537, 539 (1st Cir. 1993).   To the            ______    _____            extent plaintiff  seeks review of defendant's  finding of "no            probable  cause,"  see Mass.  G.L. c.  151B,     5-6,  9, the                               ___            district  court plainly  lacked subject  matter jurisdiction.            And to the extent  plaintiff seeks damages under 42  U.S.C.              1983  on  account  of   (1)  defendant's  allegedly  improper            processing of her  claim or  (2) its reaction  to her  office            visit  in February 1992, it is clear that defendant is immune            under  the  Eleventh  Amendment.     See,  e.g.,  Johnson  v.                                                 ___   ____   _______            Rodriguez,  943  F.2d  104,  108-09 (1st  Cir.  1991),  cert.            _________                                               _____            denied, 112 S. Ct. 948 (1992).             ______                 Nor does it appear  that the deficiencies in plaintiff's            complaint "could be remedied through more specific pleading."            Denton, 112  S. Ct. at  1734.  In  Johnson, a case  involving            ______                             _______            similar contentions against this same defendant, we held that            alleged improprieties  in the handling of  a grievance failed            to implicate a due process interest.  943 F.2d at 109-10; see                                                                      ___            also Francis-Sobel v. University of Maine, 597 F.2d 15, 17-18            ____ _____________    ___________________                                         -2-            (1st Cir.) (EEOC finding of no reasonable cause does not give            rise  to constitutional  claim), cert.  denied, 444  U.S. 949                                             _____________            (1979).  And  plaintiff's allegations as to  her treatment by            unidentified  personnel   in  defendant's  office--conclusory            allegations which  have received  no elaboration on  appeal--            fall  well short of stating a  constitutional violation.  See                                                                      ___            Watson,  984 F.2d at 540  ("The difference between failing to            ______            state  a  claim  and making  a  frivolous  claim  is in  some            situations a question of degree.").                 Affirmed.                 _________                                         -3-