Arthur J. Jackson, Jr. v. City of Cambridge

Not for publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 03-1616
ARTHUR J. JACKSON, JR.,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Howard, Circuit Judges.
Arthur Jackson, Jr. on brief pro se.
Merita A. Hopkins and Thomas R. Donohue on brief for appellees
City of Boston and Eugene Hurley.
Birge Albright on brief for appellee City of Cambridge.
December 31, 2003

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Per Curiam. Pro se appellant Arthur Jackson, Jr., appeals
from the dismissal of his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After
careful review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm,
essentially for the reasons given by the district court in its
Memorandum and Order dated April 3, 2003. We add only the
following comments.
We see no need to decide whether the double jeopardy claim was
barred by res judicata, as the district court held, because that
claim was properly dismissed for other reasons. In part, the claim
was based on the time served sentence for appellant's armed robbery
conviction, which allegedly did not credit appellant for time
served on a prior mutually exclusive conviction which had been
vacated. But the defendants played no role in securing the time
served sentence on the armed robbery conviction. Therefore, they
cannot be held liable for any failure to give the sentence credit.
Furthermore, there is no basis for any suit against the
individual defendant, Boston police detective Eugene Hurley.
Hurley had probable cause to seek the armed robbery arrest warrant,
and he is absolutely immune with respect to his testimony before
the grand jury, Kyricopoulos v. Town of Orleans, 967 F.2d 14, 16
(1st Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (citation omitted). Qualified
immunity would protect him from any damages claim based on the
alleged double jeopardy violation arising out of his pursuit of the
armed robbery charges.
Affirmed.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-

-- 3 of 3 --