Filed: Aug. 23, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: ROBERT G. DELLELO, ET AL.1, When this appeal first came before the court, we ordered the, appeal stayed pending a decision by the state's highest court on a, pertinent state-law issue.appellants' Haverty claims.consider appellants' undeveloped claim.of appeals to its district court filings).
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 05-2205
ROBERT G. DELLELO, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
MICHAEL MALONEY, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Edward F. Harrington, Senior U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Robert G. Dellelo and George Nassar on brief pro se.
Stephen G. Dietrick, Deputy General Counsel, and Nancy
Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General, on brief for
appellees.
August 23, 2007
Per Curiam. Pro se appellants Robert Dellelo and
George Nassar appeal the dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
suit against state administrators and corrections officials.
After considering the arguments made in the original and
supplemental briefs,1 we affirm.
1. State-Law Haverty Claim
In their complaint seeking money damages, appellants
raised a pendent state-law claim based on Haverty v.
Commissioner of Correction,
437 Mass. 737 (2002). In Haverty,
an inmate class action suit seeking declaratory and injunctive
relief, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ("SJC")
concluded, as a matter of state law, that prison officials must
comply with certain state regulations before housing inmates
for nondisciplinary reasons in the East Wing at MCI-Cedar
Junction.
Id. at 763 (excepting "brief" housing assignments).
The district court dismissed appellant Dellelo's Haverty claim
for lack of exhaustion. It dismissed appellant Nassar's claim
based on a lower state court decision involving a different
inmate's Haverty claim, which concluded that prison officials
had qualified immunity from suit.
1
When this appeal first came before the court, we ordered the
appeal stayed pending a decision by the state's highest court on a
pertinent state-law issue. As is indicated below, the state court
has recently issued its decision. Therefore, we lifted the stay
order and directed supplemental briefing addressing that decision.
-2-
Recently, the SJC affirmed the lower court's
qualified immunity ruling. It held that prison officials
"could have reasonably . . . concluded, prior to October 10,
2002, the date the Haverty opinion was issued, that the law did
not compel their compliance with the [state] regulations." See
Longval v. Commissioner of Correction,
448 Mass. 412, 422
(2007). In their supplemental brief, appellants argue that the
SJC erroneously decided the qualified immunity issue. However,
"the views of the state's highest court with respect to state
law are binding on the federal courts." Wainwright v. Goode,
464 U.S. 78, 84 (1983); see also Largess v. Supreme Judicial
Court for the State of Massachusetts,
373 F.3d 219, 224 (1st
Cir.) (noting that "the decisions of a state's highest court on
issues of state law . . . are generally treated as
authoritative by federal courts"), cert. denied,
543 U.S. 1002
(2004). Based on Longval, we affirm the dismissal of
appellants' Haverty claims.
2. Remaining Claims
The district court dismissed the remaining claims on
the ground that appellants had not exhausted their
administrative remedies, as required by federal and state law.
On appeal, appellants allege only that the district court's
decision failed to address the numerous contentions they made
in that court on the exhaustion question. They identify the
-3-
district court filing containing their contentions, but fail to
discuss any particular argument, let alone establish that it
had merit. Following our usual practice, we decline to
consider appellants' undeveloped claim. See Executive Leasing
v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico,
48 F.3d 66, 68 (1st Cir. 1995)
(deeming an appellate claim "waived" where the appellant
provided no supporting argument but merely referred the court
of appeals to its district court filings).
Affirmed. Appellants' pending motions are
denied as moot.
-4-