Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Scarpa v. Desmond, 93-1140 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 93-1140 Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 20, 1993
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: August 20, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 93-1140 NAZZARO SCARPA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. JOSEPH DESMOND, Defendant, Appellee. alleged perjury at trial);
USCA1 Opinion









August 20, 1993
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________


No. 93-1140

NAZZARO SCARPA,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH DESMOND,

Defendant, Appellee.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

____________________

Before

Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

Nazzaro Scarpa on brief pro se.
______________
A. John Pappalardo, United States Attorney, and Suzanne E.
____________________ ___________
Durrell, Assistant United States Attorney, on Memorandum in Support of
_______
Appellee's Motion for Summary Disposition, for appellee.


____________________


____________________




















Per Curiam. Upon review of the parties' briefs and the
__________

record on appeal, we find no error in the district court's

dismissal of plaintiff's complaint based on the reasons set

forth in the defendant's memorandum. We add only that, in

any event, plaintiff's allegation that the defendant

committed perjury, even accepted as true for purposes of the

motion to dismiss, does not support a civil rights claim for

damages. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (holding
___ _______ _____

that a police officer witness is entitled to absolute

immunity against a 1983 claim; alleged perjury at trial);

Kyricopoulos v. Town of Orleans, 967 F.2d 14, 16 (1st Cir.
____________ ________________

1992) (same; alleged perjury before grand jury and at trial);

see also Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 504 (1978) (stating
___ ____ ____ ________

that, for purposes of immunity law, there is no distinction

between suits brought against state officials under 1983

and suits brought directly under the Constitution against

federal officials).

Affirmed.
________

























Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer