Court Opinion

ID: 2963541
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:11:41.598426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:07.163282
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        August 2, 1995          [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-2321

                                   SHIRLEY ADAMSON,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                 NANCY MILLS, 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

                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Shirley Adamson on brief pro se.
            _______________
            Andrew  Ketterer, Attorney  General, and Leanne  Robbin, Assistant
            ________________                         ______________
        Attorney General, on brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  We  have carefully reviewed the briefs
                      __________

            and  record and find no merit in plaintiff's contentions that

            defendants acted  in the  clear absence of  any jurisdiction.

            Under Maine law, state district courts have jurisdiction over

            the  civil violations in question as well as power to enforce

            their  orders through contempt.   20-A Me. Rev.  Stat. Ann.  

            5053(2);  14  Me.   Rev.  Stat.  Ann.     252.    Plaintiff's

            contention  that a  prosecutor  must file  a civil  violation
                                __________

            complaint supported  by an affidavit before  a district court
                                       _________

            acquires jurisdiction is wrong.   17-A Me. Rev. Stat.  Ann.  

            17.   As for plaintiff's challenge to her arrest, the court's

            civil  order of arrest was supported by a sworn motion signed
                                                      _____

            by an  assistant district attorney which  clearly established

            probable  cause  to  believe  plaintiff  had  violated  court

            orders.  The  assistant district attorney's sworn  statements

            were  equivalent  to  affidavits.    Plaintiff's  action  was

            properly  dismissed on  judicial  immunity grounds,  and  the

            district court  did not err  in denying discovery  or further

            time  for amendment  since plaintiff  failed to  indicate any

            viable basis for overcoming defendants' immunity.

                      Plaintiff's motion  to strike defendants'  brief is

            denied.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -2-