
USCA1 Opinion

	




          January 17, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No. 94-1741                                                MUSHEER HASAN,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                              RED AND WHITE CAB COMPANY,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                  __________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ___________________                                        Before                               Torruella, Chief Judge,                                          ___________                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ___________________               Musheer Hasan on brief pro se.               _____________               Stephen M. Ouellette and Cianciulli & Ouellette on brief for               ____________________     ______________________          appellee.                                  __________________                                  __________________                      Per Curiam.   Appellant Musheer Hasan appeals  from                      __________            the  dismissal by the district  court of his  complaint.  The            court dismissed  the action  as frivolous  under 28  U.S.C.              1915(d).   Upon  a review of  the record  and the  briefs and            filings  of the  parties, we  agree with  the court  that the            action lacked "an  arguable basis"  in law.   See Neitzke  v.                                                          ___ _______            Williams,  490 U.S.  319,  325  (1989).    In  so  doing,  we            ________            emphasize that appellee  Red &  White Cab Co.,  as a  private            entity, cannot be sued for alleged  constitutional violations            under 42 U.S.C.    1983.  See Jackson v.  Metropolitan Edison                                      ___ _______     ___________________            Co., 419  U.S. 345, 350 (1974) (the fact  that a business may            ___            be  subject to  state regulation  is not  enough to  turn its            actions  into  those of  the state  for  purposes of  a civil            rights suit).                      Further, under the Americans with Disabilities Act,            a person such as appellant may  not assert a cause of  action            for damages.  The  Act specifies that the remedies  set forth            in  42  U.S.C.     2000a-3(a)  are  the  ones  available  for            violations of  the Act.   See  42 U.S.C.    12188(a)(1).   In                                      ___            turn,    2000a-3(a)  provides for  an action  for "preventive            relief,"  including  requests  for injunctions  or  temporary            restraining  orders.  Damages are not a remedy under   2000a-            3(a).  Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400,                   ______    _____________________________            402 (1968) (per curiam).                                         -2-                      Finally, if the district court  had no jurisdiction            with respect to the  federal claims, it appropriately refused            to  take jurisdiction  of the  state breach  of contract  and            statutory claims.  See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S.                               ___ ___________________    _____            715, 726 (1966).                      Based on  the foregoing, we affirm  the judgment of                                                  ______            the district court.  Accordingly, appellant's pending motions            are denied as moot.                   ______                                                      -3-
