Gorczakoski v. U.S. Dept. of Labor ( 1993 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion









    May 4, 1993
    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

    ____________________


    No. 92-2189

    BERENICE MARY GORCZAKOSKI,

    Plaintiff, Appellant,

    v.

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

    Defendant, Appellee.


    ____________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

    [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
    ___________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Torruella, Cyr and Boudin,
    Circuit Judges.
    ______________

    ____________________

    Berenice Mary Gorczakoski on brief pro se.
    _________________________
    A. John Pappalardo, United States Attorney, William L. Parker,
    ___________________ __________________
    Assistant United States Attorney, Judith E. Kramer, Deputy Solicitor
    _________________
    of Labor, James D. Henry, Associate Solicitor, Beverly I. Dankowitz,
    _______________ ____________________
    Attorney, and Andrea S. Grill, Attorney, United States Department of
    _______________
    Labor, on Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition, for
    appellee.


    ____________________


    ____________________











    Per Curiam. We find no abuse of discretion in the
    ___________

    district court's dismissal of the instant complaint as

    "frivolous" under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). See, e.g., Denton v.
    ___ ____ ______

    Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992) ( 1915(d) dismissal
    _________

    properly reviewed for abuse of discretion); Neitzke v.
    _______

    Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (complaint is frivolous
    ________

    "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact");

    Watson v. Caton, 984 F.2d 537, 539 (1st Cir. 1993). It is
    ______ _____

    uncontested that defendant, upon determining that it lacked

    jurisdiction over the matter, transferred plaintiff's

    complaint to the EEOC. Plaintiff has provided no reason to

    suggest that these actions were other than in full

    conformance with applicable law. See, e.g., 29 C.F.R.
    ___ ____

    1691.5 (1992). And even if it were otherwise, we perceive no

    arguable basis for subjecting defendant to liability as a

    result of any improprieties in its processing of plaintiff's

    complaint. See, e.g., Francis-Sobel v. University of Maine,
    ___ ____ _____________ ____________________

    597 F.2d 15, 18 (1st Cir.) (EEOC's alleged mishandling of

    grievance did not "support the implication of a damage

    remedy"), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 949 (1979); see also Johnson
    ____________ ________ _______

    v. Rodriguez, 943 F.2d 104, 108-09 (1st Cir.) (alleged
    _________

    irregularities in processing of complaint by state

    antidiscrimination commission did not implicate due process

    interest), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 949 (1992). As we find
    ____________

    no reason to believe that the deficiencies in the instant

    complaint "could be remedied through more specific pleading,"

    Denton, 112 S. Ct. at 1734, dismissal under 1915(d) was
    ______

    warranted.


















    Affirmed.
    ________



















































    -3-







Document Info

Docket Number: 92-2189

Filed Date: 5/5/1993

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2015