Corcoran v. Twn of Sudbury
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
November 28, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-1557
WILLIAM J. CORCORAN,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
TOWN OF SUDBURY, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Stahl and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
William J. Corcoran on brief pro se. ___________________
Paul L. Kenny, Town Counsel, on brief for appellees Town of ______________
Sudbury, et al.
David J. Hatem, Warren D. Hutchison, Andrew J. McBreen and Burns ______________ ___________________ _________________ _____
& Levinson on brief for appellee Elisa D. Cunningham. __________
Wayne H. Scott on brief for appellee Wayne H. Scott. ______________
Mark A. McCormack and Sloane and Walsh on brief for appellee __________________ __________________
Cuddy, Lynch & Bixby.
John E. Sutherland and Brickley, Sears & Sorett on brief for ___________________ ___________________________
appellee Francis H. Clark.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Appellant William J. Corcoran appeals the __________
dismissal by the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts of his complaint alleging
violations of his civil rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983
and 42 U.S.C. 1985, and a state law claim for attorney
negligence. Both the federal and state claims arise out of a
decision by the Sudbury Town Planning Board denying
Corcoran's request for approval of a plan to subdivide a
parcel of land. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
eventually ordered that the plan be approved. We affirm the
dismissal of the federal claims but vacate the dismissal of
the Corcoran's state claim.
Corcoran alleges violations of his federal rights to
procedural and substantive due process, as well as his right
to equal protection. However, in each case, he has failed to
allege facts sufficient to support his claim. Therefore, his
civil rights claims were properly dismissed.
Corcoran's right to procedural due process was not
violated because, even if the initial denial of his proposed
plan by the Town Planning Board was unjustified, the state
provided an adequate remedy through the appellate process.
See PFZ Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 928 F.2d 28, 31 (1st ___ ___________________ _________
Cir. 1991) (no violation of procedural due process where
state provides adequate judicial remedies for administrative
error). Moreover, this court has held repeatedly, in similar
cases, that, when the state provides adequate postdeprivation
relief, the mere delay in obtaining that relief is
insufficient to support a procedural due process claim. See ___
Licari v. Ferruzzi, 22 F.3d 344, 349 (1st Cir. 1994) (citing ______ ________
cases).
Corcoran's substantive due process claim fails because
he has alleged no facts which in any sense constitute the
sort of "conscience shocking" behavior necessary to support a
substantive due process claim in the context of a zoning
dispute. See id. at 350. ___ __
Corcoran's claim that he suffered a violation of his
right to equal protection is precluded by the fact that he
has not alleged that any selective treatment he might have
received was "based on impermissible considerations such as
race, religion, intent to inhibit or punish the exercise of
constitutional rights, or malicious or bad faith intent to
injure." Rubinovitz v. Rogato, 60 F.3d 906, 910 (1st Cir. __________ ______
1995) (quoting Yerardi's Moody St. Restaurant & Lounge, Inc. ______________________________________________
v. Board of Selectmen, 878 F.2d 16, 21 (1st Cir. 1989)). __________________
"As a general principle, the unfavorable disposition of
a plaintiff's federal claims at the early stages of a suit,
well before the commencement of trial, will trigger the
dismissal without prejudice of any supplemental state law
claim." Rodriguez v. Doral Mortg. Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1177 _________ __________________
(1st Cir. 1995). The district court has the authority, based
on its assessment of the "totality of circumstances," to
retain jurisdiction over state law claims in such cases. Id. __
-3-
(giving examples of some factors to be considered by the
district court in this assessment).
In the instant case, although the district court granted
the motion to dismiss the claim for attorney negligence, it
does not appear to have undertaken the requisite calculus.
This failure might induce us to remand the case to the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Corcoran v. Twn of Sudbury, (1st Cir. 1995).
Corcoran v. Twn of Sudbury (Corcoran v. Twn of Sudbury) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Licari v. Ferruzzi
22 F.3d 344 (First Circuit, 1994)
Rodriguez-Bruno v. Doral Mortgage
57 F.3d 1168 (First Circuit, 1995)
Rubinovitz v. Rogato
60 F.3d 906 (First Circuit, 1995)
Robert Brennan v. Roderick Hendrigan
888 F.2d 189 (First Circuit, 1989)
Pfz Properties, Inc. v. Rene Alberto Rodriguez, Etc.
928 F.2d 28 (First Circuit, 1991)