USCA1 Opinion

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]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, 397 U.S. 254 (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, 81 F.3d 257, 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.