Court Opinion

ID: 2962939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:03:55.744329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:20.698996
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          October 24, 1994      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No. 94-1452                                                VINCENT BOGLE,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                               JOHN T. LIEBEL, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                  __________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                 [Hon. Frank H. Freedman, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                          __________________________                                 ___________________                                        Before                               Torruella, Chief Judge,                                          ___________                            Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                 ___________________               Vincent O. Bogle on brief pro se.               ________________               Edward  M. Pikula  and  Matroni, DiMauro,  Liebel, Pikula  &               _________________       ____________________________________          deSousa on brief for appellees.          _______                                  __________________                                  __________________                                         -2-                 Per  Curiam.    The  district court  properly  dismissed                 ___________            plaintiff's action  for lack of jurisdiction  and for failure            to state a claim.  We explain briefly.                 If  the  state   probate  court  incorrectly   concluded            plaintiff  had been  properly  served, erred  in refusing  to            order blood tests, improperly  assessed the evidence, or made            other mistakes,  plaintiff's remedy was to  appeal within the            state  court system and then petition the Supreme Court for a            writ of certiorari.  Plaintiff may not litigate these type of            challenges to the state court proceedings  in a lower federal            court because  lower  federal  courts  lack  jurisdiction  to            review  state court  proceedings.   Rooker v.  Fidelity Trust                                                _________________________            Co.,  263 U.S.  413, 415-16 (1923);  Lancellotti v.  Fay, 909            ___                                  ___________________            F.2d 15, 17 (1st Cir. 1990).                 Plaintiff failed  to state  any viable basis  for relief            under state tort law or federal civil rights laws.  Plaintiff            did not  identify any unprivileged,  defamatory statement and            failed   to  allege   either   any  class-based   invidiously            discriminatory  animus, Hahn  v. Sargent,  523 F.2d  461, 469                                    ________________            (1st  Cir.  1975)  (class-based,  invidiously  discriminatory            animus  required  to state  a claim  under  the portion  of              1985(2)   proscribing  conspiracies  to  interfere  with  the            administration of justice in state courts), cert. denied, 425                                                        ____________            U.S. 904 (1976), or facts that  would rise to the level of an            actionable conspiracy.                                         -2-                 We have considered all of plaintiff's arguments and have            found them to be without merit.                 Affirmed.                 ________                                         -3-