Keselica v. Carcieri ( 2007 )

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 07-1368
MICHAEL G. KESELICA,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
DONALD L. CARCIERI, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Selya, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
Michael G. Keselica on brief pro se
Mark R. Davis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, William F.
Thro, State Solicitor General, and Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney
General, on brief for appellee Timothy M. Kaine.
November 7, 2007
Per Curiam. Michael G. Keselica appeals from the
district court's sua sponte dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), of a civil rights complaint filed approximately
one month after the sua sponte dismissal of a substantially similar
complaint that Keselica had filed in the same court. In both
instances, the district court concluded that Keselica's claims
necessarily called into question the legality of his confinement
and, therefore, were not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 or
1985. We summarily affirmed the first dismissal, see Keselica v.
Carcieri, No. 07-1195 (1st Cir. Sept. 4, 2007) (per curiam), and
the same disposition is appropriate here.
Dismissal of the complaint was proper for the reasons set
forth in the magistrate judge's January 30, 2007, report and
recommendation, subsequently adopted by the district court.1 See
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005); see also Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489-90 (1973) (challenge to fact or
duration of confinement must be through habeas corpus).
The judgment of the district court is summarily affirmed.
See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).
1
That decision was in accord with applicable Supreme Court
precedent.