Court Opinion

ID: 2963489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:10:47.579508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:41.071908
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          July 5, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1336

                                 MICHAEL T. ROSSMAN,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                         OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Michael T. Rossman on brief pro se.
            __________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Complaining about a scheduling  order,
                      __________

            which reassigned  his case from Cambridge  to Concord without

            notice or  hearing, plaintiff filed the  present civil rights

            action.   Plaintiff  contends that  he  has been  denied  due

            process  in the state court.  Plaintiff emphasizes that he is

            not challenging the ruling itself -- that is, the correctness

            of the scheduling order -- but, rather, the lack of process -

            -  the absence of notice  and hearing.   This distinction, he

            seems to believe, immunizes his case from dismissal under the

            Rooker-Feldman doctrine.   Rooker v. Fidelity  Trust Co., 263
            ______________             ______    ___________________

            U.S. 413  (1923); District of  Columbia Court  of Appeals  v.
                              _______________________________________

            Feldman, 460 U.S.  462 (1983).  We disagree.   See Phinizy v.
            _______                                        ___ _______

            Alabama,  847  F.2d  282,  284 (5th  Cir.  1988)  (claim that
            _______

            probate  court's conduct of  proceedings denied plaintiff due

            process  was  inextricably intertwined  with  probate court's

            judgment; consequently, under  Rooker-Feldman, lower  federal
                                           ______________

            court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the challenge).

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