December 22, 1993     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-