Court Opinion

ID: 2962938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:03:55.475352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:19.778613
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          October 24, 1994      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1196                                JOSEPH M. CRAVEIRO, II,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                             LORING P. LAMOUREUX, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Joseph M. Craveiro, Jr. on brief pro se.            _______________________            Scott  Harshbarger,  Attorney General,  and  Eleanor Coe  Sinnott,            __________________                           ____________________        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  Appellant Joseph Craveiro appeals from                      __________            the  district court's order  dismissing his 42  U.S.C.   1983            complaint as frivolous  under 28  U.S.C.   1915(d).   Upon  a            careful review  of the  record  and the  parties' briefs,  we            agree with the judgment of the district court for essentially            the  reasons stated in its Memorandum  and Order dated August            3, 1993.  We add the following comments.                      First,  appellant's request for  an order directing            defendants to  correct the state judgment is barred by Rooker                                                                   ______            v.  Fidelity  Trust  Co., 263  U.S.  413,  416 (1923)  (lower                ____________________            federal court has no  jurisdiction to sit in review  of state            court  judgment).   Second, a  federal court  cannot instruct            state  officials   how  to  behave  based   upon  state  law.                                                              _____            Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106            ______________________________    _________            (1984).    These  cases  dispose of  appellant's  claims  for            declaratory and  injunctive relief.   Finally, a  judgment in            favor  of appellant in this case plainly would imply that his            conviction for armed robbery is invalid.  Thus, his claim for            damages  is not  cognizable  under     1983.    See  Heck  v.                                                            ___  ____            Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994).            ________                      Appellant's    complaint,    being   premised    on            "indisputably  meritless  legal  theor[ies],"   is  therefore            frivolous within the meaning of Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.                                            _______    ________            319,  327  (1989).   The judgment  of  the district  court is            affirmed.            ________