Beldotti v. Boisvert

USCA1 Opinion









[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________


No. 96-1581

DENNIS J. BELDOTTI,
Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

GWEN BOISVERT, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Robert B. Collings, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________

Dennis J. Beldotti on brief pro se. __________________
Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and Gregory I. Massing, _________________ ____________________
Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Bureau, on brief for appellees
William Delahunt and Gerald Pudolsky.
Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and Howard R. Meshnick, __________________ ___________________
Assistant Attorney General, Trial Division, on brief for appellees
Gwen Boisvert, William McCabe, Charles Barry, and James Sharkey.
Bruce R. Henry, Thomas M. Elcock, and Morrison, Mahoney & Miller ______________ ________________ ___________________________
on brief for appellee Glover Memorial Hospital.
Brian Rogal and Law Offices of Timothy M. Burke on brief for ____________ _________________________________
appellee Brian O'Hara.
David C. Jenkins and Dwyer & Jenkins on brief for appellees _________________ _________________
Thomas J. Leary, Michael F. O'Toole and Albert P. Droney.
William J. Dailey, Jr., Robert G. Eaton, Janet Nally Barnes, and ______________________ ________________ __________________
Sloane and Walsh on brief for appellee Jonathan Diamond, M.D. ________________

____________________

October 29, 1996
____________________















Per Curiam. On de novo review of the issues, we ___________ __ ____

agree that plaintiff's 1983 claims are barred by the

borrowed three-year state limitations period for tort

actions. The complaint seeks monetary damages arising from

the application to plaintiff's skin of a chemical solution

containing ortho-tolidine, a potential carcinogen, during an

investigatory search for the presence of occult (invisible)

blood. Plaintiff alleges Fourth Amendment, due process, and

other constitutional violations arising from the skin search,

which was conducted in August, 1988. He does not claim

injury nor damages arising from his later criminal conviction

and imprisonment. Thus the 1983 claims stated in the

complaint accrued on the date that the search was conducted,

and this complaint, filed almost five years later, was

untimely. See McIntosh v. Antonio, 71 F.3d 29, 34 (1st Cir. ___ ________ _______

1995). While the magistrate's opinion raises some

interesting questions about how a court might handle similar

claims filed during the pendency of parallel state criminal

proceedings, we need not reach those questions because this

complaint was filed well after the state proceedings had

concluded.

Plaintiff's allegation that he did not learn of the

latent effects of ortho-tolidine until October 30, 1992, does

not affect the accrual date. The gravamen of plaintiff's

1983 claims is not a medical injury but the alleged injury to



-2-













his constitutional rights based on the ortho-tolidine skin

search. It is beyond dispute that when the skin search was

conducted plaintiff had sufficient notice of all of the facts

necessary to alert him to a possible constitutional injury,

as further demonstrated by his assertion of Fourth Amendment

motions to suppress the test results in his criminal trial.

Through reasonable diligence during the limitations period he

could have discovered the facts which he states were then

well known in scientific circles, and on which he now seeks

to predicate additional constitutional injury and damage.

See Marrapese v. State, 749 F.2d 934, 937-38 (1st Cir. 1984), ___ _________ _____

cert. denied, 474 U.S. 921 (1985). ____________

Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed and, ________

as no federal issues remain, the judgment is modified to ________

indicate that the pendent state claims are dismissed without

prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.





















-3-