Jackson v. City of Cambridge

First Circuit

Jackson v. City of Cambridge

83 F. App'x 338

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedDecember 31, 2003

Docket03-1616

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 83 F. App'x 338 (Jackson v. City of Cambridge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jackson v. City of Cambridge, 83 F. App'x 338 (1st Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pro se appellant Arthur Jackson, Jr., appeals from the dismissal of his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm, essentially for the reasons given by the district court in its Memorandum and Order dated April 3, 2003. We add only the following comments.

We see no need to decide whether the double jeopardy claim was barred by res judicata, as the district court held, because that claim was properly dismissed for other reasons. In part, the claim was based on the time served sentence for appellant’s armed robbery conviction, which allegedly did not credit appellant for *339 time served on a prior mutually exclusive conviction which had been vacated. But the defendants played no role in securing the time served sentence on the armed robbery conviction. Therefore, they cannot be held liable for any failure to give the sentence credit.

Furthermore, there is no basis for any suit against the individual defendant, Boston police detective Eugene Hur,ley. Hurley had probable cause to seek the armed robbery arrest warrant, and he is absolutely immune with respect to his testimony before the grand jury, Kyrico-poulos v. Town of Orleans, 967 F.2d 14,16 (1st Cir.1992) (per curiam) (citation omitted). Qualified immunity would protect him from any damages claim based on the alleged double jeopardy violation arising out of his pursuit of the armed robbery charges.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Pro se appellant Arthur Jackson, Jr., appeals from the dismissal of his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm, essentially for the reasons given by the district court in its Memorandum and Order dated April 3, 2003. We add only the following comments.

We see no need to decide whether the double jeopardy claim was barred by res judicata, as the district court held, because that claim was properly dismissed for other reasons. In part, the claim was based on the time served sentence for appellant’s armed robbery conviction, which allegedly did not credit appellant for *339 time served on a prior mutually exclusive conviction which had been vacated. But the defendants played no role in securing the time served sentence on the armed robbery conviction. Therefore, they cannot be held liable for any failure to give the sentence credit.

Furthermore, there is no basis for any suit against the individual defendant, Boston police detective Eugene Hur,ley. Hurley had probable cause to seek the armed robbery arrest warrant, and he is absolutely immune with respect to his testimony before the grand jury, Kyrico-poulos v. Town of Orleans, 967 F.2d 14,16 (1st Cir.1992) (per curiam) (citation omitted). Qualified immunity would protect him from any damages claim based on the alleged double jeopardy violation arising out of his pursuit of the armed robbery charges.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 F. App'x 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-city-of-cambridge-ca1-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack