Court Opinion

ID: 2963501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:11:01.184542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:41.190703
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 23, 1995         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

              

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-2248 

                             FRANK A. GRECO, M.D., Ph.D.,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                             MARY C. FITZPATRICK, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                    [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Frank A. Greco, M.D., Ph.D., on brief pro se.
            ___________________________
            Scott  Harshbarger, Attorney  General,  and Rebecca  P.  McIntyre,
            __________________                          _____________________
        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   We  affirm the judgment  substantially for
                 __________

            the  reasons  recited in  the  district  court's decision  of

            November 10, 1994, adding only the following comments.

                 In  objecting to  the district  court's reliance  on the

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

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

            Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), plaintiff argues that he is not
            _______

            seeking to overturn any state court judgment per se and that,

            in  fact, many of the challenges here advanced to the probate

            court  proceedings  were never  pursued  in  the state  court

            system.    The  Rooker-Feldman  doctrine  recognizes  that  a
                            ______________

            federal district court lacks appellate jurisdiction to review

            a  state  court judgment.   See,  e.g.,  id. at  482-86; Gash
                                        ___   ____   ___             ____

            Assocs.  v. Village of  Rosemont, Ill., 995  F.2d 726, 728-29
            _______     __________________________

            (7th Cir. 1993);  Lancellotti v.  Fay, 909 F.2d  15, 17  (1st
                              ___________     ___

            Cir. 1990).  What  plaintiff fails to recognize is  that such

            "impermissible appellate  review may  occur  when a  district

            court is asked  to entertain a claim that was not even argued

            in the state court but is 'inextricably intertwined' with the

            state court judgment."   Ritter  v. Ross, 992  F.2d 750,  753
                                     ______     ____

            (7th Cir.  1993) (quoting  Feldman, 460  U.S.  at 483  n.16),
                                       _______

            cert.  denied,  114 S.  Ct. 694  (1994); accord,  e.g., Keene
            _____________                            ______   ____  _____

            Corp. v.  Cass, 908 F.2d  293, 296-97 (8th  Cir. 1990).   The
            _____     ____

            multiple claims here  presented--alleging violations of  such

            matters  as due process,  equal protection, and  the right to

            counsel--are  sufficiently  "intertwined"  with  the  probate

            court  proceedings so  as to  fall within  the Rooker-Feldman
                                                           ______________

            doctrine's embrace.   Plaintiff's remedy is  to appeal within

            the state  court system and  then, if necessary,  to petition

            the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

                 We add that plaintiff's various allegations would falter

            even if the merits were to  be considered.  To list just some

            of  the  infirmities affecting  his complaint:   In  order to

            state a cause of action under  the second clause of 42 U.S.C.

               1985(2),  plaintiff  was required  to  allege class-based,

            invidiously  discriminatory  animus,   see,  e.g.,  Hahn   v.
                                                   ___   ____   ____

            Sargent, 523 F.2d 461, 469 (1st Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425
            _______                                     ____________

            U.S. 904  (1976); divorced  fathers seeking custody  of their

            children  do not  form a  protected class  under   1985.   No

            Sixth Amendment right to counsel obtains in civil proceedings

            of this nature.  See, e.g., Wilson v. State of New Hampshire,
                             ___  ____  ______    ______________________

            18  F.3d 40, 41 (1st  Cir. 1994) (per  curiam).  Unauthorized

            conduct  that  cannot be  foreseen  and  controlled does  not

            constitute  a due  process violation  "until and  unless [the

            state]  ...  refuses to  provide  a  suitable postdeprivation

            remedy,"  Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); no such
                      ______    ______

            showing has been  made here.   With respect  to those  claims

            that were  or  could  have been  presented  in  state  court,

                                         -3-

            relitigation thereof would  be barred on preclusion  grounds.

            See, e.g., Willhauck v.  Halpin, 953 F.2d 689, 705  (1st Cir.
            ___  ____  _________     ______

            1991).   The judicial defendants would be immune from most if

            not  all of  the damage  claims here  presented.   See, e.g.,
                                                               ___  ____

            Mireles v.  Waco, 502  U.S. 9 (1991)  (per curiam).   And the
            _______     ____

            Commonwealth and  the probate  court (along with  the private

            defendants in  their official  capacities) are  not "persons"

            within the  meaning of 42 U.S.C.   1983.  See, e.g., Hafer v.
                                                      ___  ____  _____

            Melo,  502 U.S. 21, 25-26  (1991); Will v.  Michigan Dep't of
            ____                               ____     _________________

            State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 62-70 (1989).  
            ____________

                 Affirmed.
                 _________

                                         -4-