[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 98-1644

JOHN J. SHAUGHNESSY,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

CITY OF LACONIA, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

Before

Boudin, Circuit Judge, Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, and Lynch, Circuit Judge.

John J. Shaughnessy on brief pro se.

March 12, 1999

Per Curiam. John Shaughnessy appeals from the district court's dismissal of his civil rights complaint seeking injunctive relief for failure to state a claim for relief. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (requiring dismissal of in forma pauperis complaints which fail to state a claim for relief). The complaint asserted that the defendants had terminated Shaughnessy's rental assistance benefits under N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 165:5 in violation of due process. We affirm because the complaint fails to state a claim for relief, even assuming, for present purposes, that the most stringent due process standards apply. See Goldberg v. Kelly,

(1970) (describing the due process protections required before welfare benefits are terminated). The benefits in question were finally terminated only after due notice and hearings at which Shaughnessy, who appeared pro se, was allowed to make a complete presentation of his arguments against termination. In accordance with constitutional standards, he received a written decision explaining why his benefits were being terminated. While the complaint asserted that members of the Fair Hearing Board were biased, a procedural defect, no structural flaw in established procedures was described (the pertinent municipal guidelines required the appointment of impartial fair hearing officers who had not participated in the decision under review), and the complaint did not allege that there were no adequate state procedures available to remedy the procedural defect; hence, the complaint failed to state a procedural due process claim. See Cronin v. Amesbury,

, 260 & n.2 (1st Cir. 1996) (rejecting a public employee's claim that the hearing officer who terminated his employment was biased because the state provided an adequate post-deprivation remedy). Affirmed.