USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________



        No. 95-1828



                                   CALVIN F. TATE,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                                   LARRY E. DUBOIS,

                                   ELEEN ELIAS AND

                                      IAN TINK,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                   [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                                  Boudin and Stahl,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Calvin F. Tate on brief pro se.
            ______________

            Scott  Harshbarger,  Attorney  General,  and  Gregory  I  Massing,
            __________________                            ___________________

        Assistant  Attorney General, on  brief for appellees,  Eleen Elias and

        Ian Tink.

            Nancy  Ankers  White,  Special  Assistant  Attorney  General,  and
            ____________________

        Daniel  A.  Less, Counsel,  Department  of  Correction, on  brief  for
        ________________

        appellee, Larry E. DuBois.



                                 ____________________



                                    March 8, 1996

                                 ____________________

































                      Per Curiam.  Plaintiff-appellant, who was committed
                      __________



            in 1983 to  the Bridgewater,  Massachusetts Treatment  Center



            for  the Sexually  Dangerous, appeals  the  dismissal of  his



            civil rights  complaint under 42  U.S.C.   1983 as  barred by



            the  statute of  limitations.    The  district  court  fairly



            construed the  complaint as  seeking damages for  appellant's



            transfer,  in 1990, to M.C.I., Cedar Junction where allegedly



            he  was held  without  treatment  for more  than  a year,  in



            violation of state law governing the indeterminate commitment



            of sexually dangerous  persons under Mass. Gen. L.  ch. 123A.



            Correctly   applying  federal   law   standards,  the   court



            determined that the  alleged cause of  action accrued at  the



            latest on September  25, 1991, when the  state court declared



            the  transfer  improper  and ordered  plaintiff's  return  to



            Bridgewater.  Appellant's continued  incarceration at M.C.I.,



            Cedar Junction  for a period  of time after the  accrual date



            did not  trigger a  new limitations  period  because in  fact



            appellant had requested or approved the stay of his return to



            Bridgewater while  he petitioned  for release  on the  ground



            that he was "no longer  sexually dangerous."  Thus, the court



            properly held  this complaint  barred by  the borrowed  state



            limitations period of three years  for the commencement of an



            action sounding in tort under 42 U.S.C.   1983.



                      Plaintiff argues on appeal that his suit was timely



            commenced by  his earlier filing  in the district court  of a







                                         -2-





























            petition for a  writ of habeas corpus, which  he describes as



            "identical"  to the  instant complaint.1    We have  compared
                                                   1



            plaintiff's  pending  petition  for  habeas  relief with  the



            complaint  in  this  action.   Without  attempting  a precise



            characterization of  his allegations,  we  conclude that  the



            pleadings are significantly  different from one another.   In



            the  habeas petition plaintiff seeks release from his current



            imprisonment at the Bridgewater treatment center.  The thrust



            of his civil  rights complaint, as  we have said, is  a quest



            for damages for  the period during which he  was incarcerated



            without  treatment at M.C.I.,  Cedar Junction.   Although the



            civil rights complaint  also contains a demand  for immediate



            release, it  was properly  dismissed without prejudice  since



            habeas corpus  is the exclusive  remedy for a  state prisoner



            seeking release from  his current confinement.   See Heck  v.
                                                             ___ ____



            Humphrey, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2369 (1994).  Any implied claim for
            ________



            damages  based on  the  alleged  invalidity  of  the  current



            confinement also was  properly dismissed, as premature.   Id.
                                                                      ___



            at 2373.   The district court's observations in  footnote one









                                
            ____________________



               1   The  habeas proceeding  was closed in  November, 1994,
               1

            apparently  due to  a clerical  error.   It  was reopened  on

            plaintiff's motion during the  pendency of this appeal.   See
                                                                      ___

            Tate v.  Commonwealth, No.  94-cv-10716, (D.  Mass. Oct.  13,
            ____     ____________

            1995) (endorsed order).   Although  plaintiff represented  to

            the district court that he  would withdraw this appeal if his

            habeas case was  reopened, he has not sought  to dismiss this

            appeal.



                                         -3-





























            of   its  memorandum  order   do  not  require   a  different



            conclusion.



                      Affirmed.
                      ________































































































                                         -4-