Court Opinion

ID: 2964275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:23:05.452059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:51.841942
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1286

                                  JOSEPH P. DICICCO,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               EARL A. BONSEY, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Joseph P. DiCicco on brief pro se.
            _________________
            Carl F. Rella, Julie D. Jenkins and Rella, Dostie & Tucker, P.A.,
            _____________  ________________     ____________________________
        on brief for appellee Robert Tremblay.
            James M. Bowie and Thompson & Bowie on brief for appellee Sandra
            ______________     ________________
        Hylander-Collier.
            Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, and Paul Stern, Assistant
            _______________                        __________
        Attorney General, on brief for appellees Justices Roberts and Smith.

                                 ____________________

                                   August 27, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Upon careful review  of the briefs and
                      __________

            record,   we  conclude  that   the  district  court  properly

            dismissed appellant's complaint,  essentially for the reasons

            stated  by the magistrate judge  and the district  court.  We

            add only the following comments.

                      Contrary to  appellant's arguments, we  perceive no

            error  in the  dismissal  of appellant's  claims against  the

            Maine  state court  judges.   Those claims  were inextricably

            intertwined with  review of the state  court proceedings, and

            so the  district court lacked subject  matter jurisdiction to

            consider  them.  See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
                             ___ _____________________________________

            Feldman, 460 U.S.  462, 476 (1983); Rooker  v. Fidelity Trust
            _______                             ______     ______________

            Co.,  263 U.S.  413, 415-16 (1923);  Lancellotti v.  Fay, 909
            ___                                  ___________     ___

            F.2d 15, 17 (1st Cir. 1990).

                      Further, we perceive no  abuse of discretion in the

            district  court's decision  to dismiss  appellant's remaining

            state claims, after his federal  claims were dismissed.   See
                                                                      ___

            28 U.S.C.   1367(c)(3); see also 28 U.S.C.   1367(d). 
                                    ________

                      Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________   ___

                                         -2-