Court Opinion

ID: 2964534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:27:06.804118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:57.444656
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1075 

                                  CHUKWU E. AZUBUKO,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               ROBERT C. RUFO, SHERIFF,
                         SUFFOLK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     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.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Chukwu E. Azubuko on brief pro se.
            _________________
            John  M.  Townsend,  General  Counsel,  Suffolk  County  Sheriff's
            __________________
        Department, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                    MARCH 4, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Appellant Chukwu  E. Azubuko  appeals
                      __________

            from  the  sua  sponte  dismissal,  under  Fed.  R.  Civ.  P.

            12(b)(6), of  his complaint  against Sheriff Robert  C. Rufo.

            The court dismissed the complaint, stating that it failed  to

            state a claim against the Sheriff.

                      It  is evident that appellant "can  prove no set of

            facts  in support  of his  claim which  would entitle  him to

            relief."  See  Conley v.  Gibson, 355 U.S.  41, 45-46  (1957)
                      ___  ______     ______

            (standard for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal).  First, it is plain

            that appellant is premising  Sheriff Rufo's liability for the

            alleged false imprisonment solely  on the Sheriff's status as

            a  supervisor or employer.  That is, the only person directly
                                                                 ________

            involved  in the incident at the Roxbury District Court is an

            attorney who  supposedly worked  for Sheriff  Rufo.   A claim

            which  is  premised  solely  on  respondeat  superior  is  an

            improper basis for  a   1983 action.  See Figueroa v. Aponte-
                                                  ___ ________    _______

            Rogue, 864 F.2d 947, 953 (1st Cir.  1989) (a defendant may be
            _____

            found liable only for his or her own acts or omissions).

                      Second, appellant  cannot state  a claim for  false

            imprisonment   under   the   Fourteenth   Amendment.      The

            availability of  an adequate  remedy under  Massachusetts law

            for such  a claim,  see,  e.g., Foley v. Polaroid  Corp., 400
                                ___   ____  _____    _______________

            Mass. 82,  508 N.E.2d 72  (1987), precludes a  procedural due

            process  challenge.  See Roche v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins.
                                 ___ _____    ___________________________

            Co., 81 F.3d 249, 256 (1st Cir. 1996).  Further, there exists
            ___

                                         -2-

            no  substantive due  process right  to be  free from  such an

            alleged  deprivation.  See  Albright v. Oliver,  510 U.S. 266
                                   ___  ________    ______

            (1994) (plurality opinion).

                      Finally,  appellant cannot state a Fourth Amendment

            claim in this case  because he never was arrested  or seized.

            A   seizure  occurs  "only  if,   in  view  of   all  of  the

            circumstances surrounding the  incident, a reasonable  person

            would  have believed that he was not  free to leave."  United
                                                                   ______

            States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980) (Stewart, J.).
            ______    __________

            The letter concerning the arrest warrant stated  specifically

            that  appellant would be arrested only if he failed to appear
                                                         ______

            at a "voluntary" court appearance.  Thus, a reasonable person

            reading this letter would understand that if he went to court

            on his  own steam, he would  not be arrested.   In any event,
                                         ___

            appellant indicates that he, in fact, freely left the meeting

            at the Roxbury District Court.

                      The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                                                            ________

                                         -3-