Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Brown v. Chicopee Fire, 1st Cir. (1993)
Brown v. Chicopee Fire, 1st Cir. (1993)
No. 92-2258
MELVIN A. BROWN,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
CHICOPEE FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 1710, IAFF, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Frank H. Freedman, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Cyr and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Melvin A. Brown on brief pro se.
_______________
Marshall T. Moriarty,
____________________
on brief for appellees.
Craig D. Robinson,
_________________
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam.
__________
the
district court's
Trial
Court
of
dismissal
of
Claims
Massachusetts,
Sessions,
defendants,
dismissal
Chicopee
barred,
claims
for
of
lack
his
District
and dismissal
subject
Court,
matter
without
1710 (the
Department,
the Trial
state
court
jurisdiction,
claims
against
"Union") as
prejudice of
The
the
Department, Small
constitutional
Local
the Union.
Court
Trial
of
federal
Court
Chicopee
Fire Fighters
against
claims against
Massachusetts, District
of his
se from
__
his state
district court
timelaw
dismissed
dated
October 8,
1991 and
September 17,
1992.
We affirm
On appeal, Brown's
the
employee,
and
that,
L.
ch.
breaching
150E.
its
Appellant
statutory
therefore,
court has
fair
obligation
the
however,
to
that
provide
by
fair
constitutional rights
jurisdiction over
the claim.
Furthermore, since
into
appellant
the
present time,
limitations
period
has not
yet
argues,
begun
the statute
to run,
much
of
less
expired.
Appellant has failed to
respect
to
his
assertion
representation by
the Union.
that
he
was
Therefore,
denied
fair
for
appellant's federal
claims.
The Union's
obligation to
is
no
representation.1
federal
constitutional
Therefore, appellant
right
to
fair
____________________
1.
As the district court correctly concluded, appellant, as
a municipal employee, and the Union, as a municipal union,
are excluded from the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.
185(a), and therefore appellant does not have a federal
statutory right to fair representation.
-3-
claim pursuant to
right by the
1983 of deprivation of
a constitutional
obligation under
represent him.
"Mere alleged
misuse or
(citations
(1986).
Thus, the
appellant's fair
Because
claim, we
omitted),
we
cert. denied,
_____________
479
find that
need not
appellant failed
U.S.
in dismissing
to state
statute of
a federal
limitations
1022
-44