Shewchun, PHD v. State of Rhode Islan , 2 F. App'x 10 ( 2001 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-1280
JOHN SHEWCHUN, PHD,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
[Hon. David L. Martin, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
John Shewchun on brief pro se.
Sheldon Whitehouse, Attorney General, and Neil F.X. Kelly,
Special Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.
January 24, 2001
Per Curiam. The district court held that
plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were barred by
the forum State's statute of limitations. Plaintiff repeats
here some of the arguments which he presented below and adds
others. The added arguments were waived by the failure to
urge them below and there is no plain error.
Reviewing the preserved issues de novo in light of
the briefs and the record on appeal, we agree with the
district court that the suit was filed almost eight years
too late. Specifically, plaintiff has not substantiated his
claim that a lawsuit which he commenced during the
limitations period had remained pending for any significant
portion of the intervening years. He also offers no
convincing argument for use of the equitable exception to
the limitations period for "continuing violations."
Construed in light of what he pleaded and could prove, the
complaint alleged several communications of mistaken
information emanating from a single wrongful act (the
alleged entry into the state court records of wrong
information about the terms of the plaintiff's probationary
sentence in breach of a plea agreement). No systemic policy
nor practice was alleged. The pendent claim, too, properly
was dismissed.
We need not reach the ineffective assistance claim
since there is no right to counsel in a civil case. The
alleged impropriety by plaintiff's private counsel did not
affect the result in this case.
Affirmed.
-3-