DocketNumber： 93-1827
Filed Date： 12/23/1993
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 3/3/2016
December 22, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 93-1827
KEVIN P. FEELEY,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
__________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
___________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
______________
___________________
Kevin P. Feeley on brief pro se.
_______________
__________________
__________________
Per Curiam. Appellant brought an in forma pauperis
___________ __ _____ ________
action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the United States, the
state of New Hampshire and several state agencies, the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and an agency, the New Hampshire
Bar Association, and various corporate defendants. The
district court ordered appellant to submit an amended
complaint describing more specifically the nature of his
claims against the various defendants. After appellant
submitted his amended complaint, the district court dismissed
the complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) on statute of
limitations grounds. We affirm for the reasons stated in the
district court's order. See Street v. Vose, 936 F.2d 38, 39
___ ______ ____
(1st Cir. 1991) (dismissal of in forma pauperis complaint
__ _____ ________
under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) is proper where the claim is barred
by the applicable statute of limitations), cert. denied, 112
____________
S. Ct. 948 (1992).
We also note, with respect to appellant's
allegations that certain state and federal authorities failed
to investigate and prosecute various individuals for alleged
criminal wrongdoing brought to their attention by appellant,
that appellant has no constitutional right to have certain
prosecutions undertaken at his behest, see Sattler v.
___ _______
Johnson, 857 F.2d 224, 227 (4th Cir. 1988), and government
_______
attorneys have an absolute immunity from suit under section
1983 for their decision not to prosecute specific claims of
-2-
criminal wrongdoing. See Harrington v. Almy, 977 F.2d 37,
___ __________ ____
40-43 (1st Cir. 1992). Accordingly, dismissal under 28
U.S.C. 1915(d) was proper. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490
___ _______ ________
U.S. 319, 327 (1989) (section 1915(d) permits dismissal of
suits based on an "indisputably meritless legal theory").
Affirmed.
________
-3-