
USCA1 Opinion

	




          May 25, 1995                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-1152                                       J. DOE,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                                 HARVARD UNIVERSITY,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]                                               ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            J. Doe on brief pro se.            ______            Robert  W. Iuliano, Office  of the  General Counsel,  on brief for            __________________        appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.       Appellant  J.  Doe  appeals  the                      ___________            dismissal   of  her  suit   against  Harvard   University  as            frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.   1915(d).  Doe also alleges            that the district court  erred in denying her request  for an            extension of time to reply to the court order of December 20,            1994, requiring  her to show  cause, within twenty  days, why            her  case should not be dismissed.  Finally, she asserts that            the  district court  judge should  have recused  himself from            this case.                 Section 1915(d) provides  the district court  discretion            to dismiss an in forma pauperis action where, inter alia, the                          __ _____ ________               _____ ____            claim is  "based on an indisputably  meritless legal theory."            Neitzke v.  Williams, 490  U.S.  319, 325  (1989); Watson  v.            _______     ________                               ______            Caton, 984  F.2d 537, 539  (1st Cir.  1993).  In  the instant            _____            case,  each  of the  four claims  raised  by Doe  was legally            meritless.                   Two  claims arise out of the same series of events which            formed the basis of Doe's previously dismissed action against            Harvard.1   Although  Doe raises different legal  theories in            the instant case,  her claims are nevertheless barred  by the            doctrine of res judicata since  they involve the same parties                        ___ ________            and arise  "from the same set  of operative facts."   Kale v.                                                                  ____            Combined Insurance Co., 924 F.2d 1161, 1166 (1st Cir.), cert.            _____________________                                   ____                                            ____________________            1.  This court affirmed the district court dismissal of Doe's            prior  action in  an  unpublished opinion  dated October  12,            1994.            denied,  502  U.S.  816  (1991).    Repetitious  actions  are            ______            appropriate for dismissal pursuant  to section 1915(d).  See,                                                                     ___            e.g., Aziz v. Burrows,  976 F.2d 1158, 1158 (8th  Cir. 1992);            ___   ____    _______            Wilson  v. Lynaugh,  878  F.2d  846,  850 (5th  Cir.),  cert.            ______     _______                                      ____            denied, 493 U.S. 969 (1989).            ______                 Doe's claim  pursuant to  the Family  Educational Rights            and Privacy  Act  [FERPA],  20 U.S.C.     1232,  is  likewise            without  legal merit since  FERPA does  not create  a private            right of action.  See, e.g., Fay v.  South Colonie Cent. Sch.                              ___  ___   ___     ________________________            Dist., 802 F.2d 21, 33 (2d Cir. 1986).              ____                 Finally, Doe's  allegation that  Harvard  was guilty  of            civil  contempt for  violating a  court order  issued in  the            prior case cannot constitute  an independent cause of action.            See, e.g., D. Patrick Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 8 F.3d 455, 459            ___  ___   ______________     _____________            (7th  Cir. 1993) ("there is  no such thing  as an independent            cause  of action  for  civil contempt")  (quoting Blalock  v.                                                              _______            United States, 844 F.2d 1546, 1550 (11th Cir. 1988)).            _____________                 Furthermore,  we find  no  error in  the  denial by  the            district court of Doe's  request for an extension of  time in            which  to file her  response to the show  cause order.  Doe's            claim that the district judge  should have recused himself is            neither  supported by  the record nor  is it  properly before            this court since it was  not raised below.  See In  re Abijoe                                                        ___ _____________            Realty  Corp.,   943  F.2d   121,  126-27  (1st   Cir.  1991)            ____________                                         -3-            (dismissing  disqualification  claim not  raised  in district            court).                 Affirmed.                 ________                                         -4-
