Jones v. MBTA ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1273



                                    SAMUEL JONES,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



              MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND CHRISTOPHER

                                      J. BLACH,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                     [Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________

                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________

                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
_____________



                                 ____________________



            Samuel Jones on brief pro se.
____________

            Merita A. Hopkins and Dawna McIntyre on brief for appellees.
_________________     ______________





                                 ____________________



                                   November 6, 1997

                                 ____________________







































                 Per  Curiam.   Samuel Jones  appeals  from the  district
___________



            court's dismissal of  his action asserting federal  and state



            claims against the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority



            (the "MBTA") and  Christopher Blach, an employee  of the City



            of Boston.  We affirm.



                 First, given  Jones's settlement agreement with the MBTA



            which  resolved  all  of  his claims  against  the  MBTA, the



            district  court properly  dismissed  the  action against  the



            MBTA.   See  C. Wright, A.  Miller &  E. Cooper,  13A Federal
___                                           _______



            Practice and  Procedure     3533.2,  at  233  (2d  ed.  1984)
_______________________



            (settlement moots  a case).1   Second,  the grant  of summary
1



            judgment against Jones on his federal claim against Blach was



            also  proper.   Counsel  for  Jones  expressly  informed  the



            district  court that  he  did not  intend  to oppose  summary



            judgment on that  claim, and Blach's summary  judgment motion



            correctly  explained  why the  allegations  in  the complaint



            failed to state a claim for relief.  On appeal, Jones has not



            explained why,  under those  circumstances, it  was error  to



            grant  summary judgment for Blach.  Third, the district court



            did  not  abuse  its  discretion  by  declining  to  exercise



            supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims against Blach



            once the court had dismissed the federal claims.  Counsel for



            Jones  essentially asked the court to  dismiss the claims and






____________________



               1In view  of our  finding, there is  no need  to determine
1

            whether the MBTA was a party on appeal.



                                         -2-



























            made no argument  in support of exercising  jurisdiction over



            those claims.  Under state  law, Jones could have refiled the



            state claims in state court.  See M.G.L. c. 260,   32 (claims
___



            dismissed for  "any matter of  form" may be refiled  in state



            court  for one year after their  dismissal); Duca v. Martins,
____    _______



            941  F. Supp.  1281, 1295  n.14 (D.  Mass.  1996) (dismissing



            state  law  claim  without  prejudice  after  dismissing  the



            plaintiff's federal  claim because M.G.L.  c. 260,    32 gave



            the plaintiff one year in which to refile his claim  in state



            court) (citing Liberace v. Conway,  31 Mass. App. Ct. 40, 43,
________    ______



            574 N.E.2d 1010, 1012, review denied, 411 Mass. 1102 (1991)).
_____________



            On appeal, Jones  suggests that the claims may  "now" be time



            barred in state court,  but that fact has  no bearing on  the



            propriety of  the court's  earlier decision  not to  exercise



            supplemental jurisdiction  over the  state claims.   Finally,



            Jones has not  explained why his malicious  prosecution claim



            could properly have been brought under   1983.   See Roche et
___ ________



            ux. Roche  v. John Hancock Mut.  Life Ins. Co.,  81 F.3d 249,
_________     ________________________________



            256 (1st  Cir. 1996) ("garden-variety"  malicious prosecution



            claims cannot  be brought  under   1983).   In  addition, his



            counsel  represented to the district court that the malicious



            prosecution claim  was a state  law claim, and, as  such, the



            court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction



            over it.



                 Affirmed.
_________







                                         -3-