Feeley v. United States

December 22, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-