Keselica v. Wall, No. 07-8023 (1st Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on September 7, 2007.

Download PDF
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 07-1368 MICHAEL G. KESELICA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. DONALD L. CARCIERI, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND [Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge] Before Boudin, Chief Judge, Selya, Senior Circuit Judge, and Lipez, Circuit Judge. Michael G. Keselica on brief pro se Mark R. Davis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, William F. Thro, State Solicitor General, and Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General, on brief for appellee Timothy M. Kaine. November 7, 2007 Per Curiam. Michael G. Keselica appeals from the district court's sua sponte dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), of a civil rights complaint filed approximately one month after the sua sponte dismissal of a substantially similar complaint that Keselica had filed in the same court. In both instances, the district court concluded that Keselica's claims necessarily called into question the legality of his confinement and, therefore, were not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 or 1985. We summarily affirmed the first dismissal, see Keselica v. Carcieri, No. 07-1195 (1st Cir. Sept. 4, 2007) (per curiam), and the same disposition is appropriate here. Dismissal of the complaint was proper for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's January 30, 2007, report and recommendation, subsequently adopted by the district court.1 See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005); see also Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489-90 (1973) (challenge to fact or duration of confinement must be through habeas corpus). The judgment of the district court is summarily affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c). 1 That decision was in accord with applicable Supreme Court precedent.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.