Court Opinion

ID: 2964350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:24:27.017895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:54.631745
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1581

                                 DENNIS J. BELDOTTI,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                GWEN BOISVERT, ET AL.,
                                Defendants, Appellees.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Robert B. Collings, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________
                                 ____________________

            Dennis J. Beldotti on brief pro se.
            __________________
            Scott Harshbarger,  Attorney  General,  and  Gregory  I.  Massing,
            _________________                            ____________________
        Assistant Attorney  General, Criminal  Bureau, on brief  for appellees
        William Delahunt and Gerald Pudolsky.
            Scott  Harshbarger,  Attorney  General,  and  Howard R.  Meshnick,
            __________________                            ___________________
        Assistant  Attorney General,  Trial Division,  on brief  for appellees
        Gwen Boisvert, William McCabe, Charles Barry, and James Sharkey.
            Bruce R. Henry, Thomas M. Elcock,  and Morrison, Mahoney &  Miller
            ______________  ________________       ___________________________
        on brief for appellee Glover Memorial Hospital.
            Brian  Rogal and  Law Offices  of Timothy  M. Burke  on brief  for
            ____________      _________________________________
        appellee Brian O'Hara.
            David C.  Jenkins  and Dwyer  &  Jenkins  on brief  for  appellees
            _________________      _________________
        Thomas J. Leary, Michael F. O'Toole and Albert P. Droney.
            William J. Dailey, Jr., Robert G.  Eaton, Janet Nally Barnes,  and
            ______________________  ________________  __________________
        Sloane and Walsh on brief for appellee Jonathan Diamond, M.D.
        ________________

                                 ____________________

                                   October 29, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.   On de  novo review of the issues, we
                      ___________       __  ____

            agree  that  plaintiff's    1983  claims  are  barred by  the

            borrowed  three-year   state  limitations  period   for  tort

            actions.   The complaint seeks monetary  damages arising from

            the application  to plaintiff's  skin of a  chemical solution

            containing ortho-tolidine, a  potential carcinogen, during an

            investigatory search  for the presence of  occult (invisible)

            blood.  Plaintiff alleges  Fourth Amendment, due process, and

            other constitutional violations arising from the skin search,

            which  was  conducted in  August, 1988.    He does  not claim

            injury nor damages arising from his later criminal conviction

            and  imprisonment.   Thus  the    1983  claims stated  in the

            complaint accrued on the date that the search was  conducted,

            and  this  complaint,  filed  almost five  years  later,  was

            untimely.  See McIntosh v. Antonio, 71 F.3d 29, 34  (1st Cir.
                       ___ ________    _______

            1995).     While   the  magistrate's   opinion  raises   some

            interesting questions about how  a court might handle similar

            claims filed  during the pendency of  parallel state criminal

            proceedings, we  need not reach those  questions because this

            complaint  was filed  well  after the  state proceedings  had

            concluded. 

                      Plaintiff's allegation that he did not learn of the

            latent effects of ortho-tolidine until October 30, 1992, does

            not affect the accrual  date.  The gravamen of  plaintiff's  

            1983 claims is not a medical injury but the alleged injury to

                                         -2-

            his constitutional rights  based on  the ortho-tolidine  skin

            search.  It is beyond  dispute that when the skin  search was

            conducted plaintiff had sufficient notice of all of the facts

            necessary to  alert him to a  possible constitutional injury,

            as further demonstrated by  his assertion of Fourth Amendment

            motions  to suppress the test results  in his criminal trial.

            Through reasonable diligence during the limitations period he

            could  have discovered the  facts which  he states  were then

            well known in scientific  circles, and on which he  now seeks

            to  predicate  additional constitutional  injury  and damage.

            See Marrapese v. State, 749 F.2d 934, 937-38 (1st Cir. 1984),
            ___ _________    _____

            cert. denied, 474 U.S. 921 (1985).    
            ____________

                      Accordingly,  the judgment  below is  affirmed and,
                                                            ________

            as  no federal  issues remain,  the judgment  is modified  to
                                                             ________

            indicate that the pendent  state claims are dismissed without

            prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

                                         -3-