Court Opinion

ID: 2964177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:44.733428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:14.500778
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 24, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2336

                                  CYNTHIA M. KUETER,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               ALLAN RANCOURT, 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

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

                                 ____________________

            Cynthia M. Kueter on brief pro se.
            _________________
            Alton C.  Stevens and Marden, Dubord,  Bernier &  Stevens on brief
            _________________     ___________________________________
        for  appellees, Allan  Rancourt  and Kennebec  Federal Savings  & Loan
        Association.
            Robert  E.  Sandy, Jr.  and  Sherman, Sandy  &  Lee on  brief  for
            _____________________        ______________________
        appellees, Hubert  C. Kueter, Robert  E. Sandy, Jr., William   A. Lee,
        and Sherman, Sandy & Lee.
            Andrew  Ketterer,  Attorney  General,  and  Paul  Stern, Assistant
            ________________                            ___________
        Attorney  General  on  Motion   for  Summary  Disposition,  for  State
        appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.  We have reviewed  the record and have
                      ___________

            read  the  parties' briefs  and  memorandum.   We  affirm the

            judgment  of the district court for the reasons stated in the

            Recommended  Decision  of  the  magistrate  judge  which  was

            adopted by the district  court.  The 100-page  second amended

            complaint plainly was "redundant, rambling,  and unorganized"

            as  the magistrate  judge described.   Thus,  to dismiss  it,

            especially after plaintiff  had been warned  to file a  short

            and concise complaint, was  not an abuse of discretion.   See
                                                                      ___

            Kuehl  v. F.D.I.C., 8 F.3d 905, 908-09 (1st Cir. 1993) (where
            _____     ________

            plaintiffs had been  warned that their complaint was too long

            and  had been  given  a  chance  to  cure  the  problem,  the

            dismissal of their new, rambling 43-page complaint was not an

            abuse of discretion), cert.  denied, 114 S. Ct.  1545 (1994).
                                  _____________

            We add that, in  any event, the complaint suffered  from more

            fatal defects:

                      1.   The district court is without  power to review

            the state court decisions -- the relief plaintiff clearly was

            seeking.   See  District  of  Columbia Court  of  Appeals  v.
                       ___  _________________________________________

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

            Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-416 (1923).
            ___

                      2.   Plaintiff cannot  bring a civil  rights action

            under 42 U.S.C.    1983  against private parties.   The  mere

            fact  that these parties  resorted to, or  appeared in, state

            court  is insufficient to turn  them into state  actors.  See
                                                                      ___

            Casa Marie, Inc. v.  Superior Court of Puerto Rico,  988 F.2d
            ________________     _____________________________

            252,  259 (1st  Cir. 1993).    Nor do  plaintiff's conclusory

            allegations that  these defendants were in  a conspiracy with

            the  state court judges suffice to bring them within   1983's

            reach.  See id.
                    ___ ___

                      3.   The  state judges  are absolutely  immune from

            claims for money damages.  See Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d  1,
                                       ___ ___    _________

            2 (1st Cir. 1989) (per curiam).

                      The judgment  of  the district  court is  affirmed.
                                                                ________

            See Local Rule 27.1.
            ___

                                         -3-