Court Opinion

ID: 2963973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:18:18.749351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:53.502250
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          April 3, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2163

                                    JAMES W. VOGT,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                             NANCY J. CHURCHILL, et al.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Cyr and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            James W. Vogt, on brief pro se.
            _____________
            Andrew  Ketterer,  Attorney  General,   Leanne  Robbin,  Assistant
            ________________                        ______________
        Attorney General, and Thomas D. Warren, Assistant Attorney General, on
                              ________________
        brief for appellees, Field, Carpenter, and Rushlaw.
            Elizabeth G. Stouder,  Thomas R. McKeon, and Richardson,  Whitman,
            ____________________   ________________      _____________________
        Large & Badger, on brief for appellee, Nancy J. Churchill.
        ______________
            Mark G.  Lavoie, Peter  J. DeTroy,  David I.  Herzer, and  Norman,
            _______________  ________________   ________________       _______
        Hanson & DeTroy, on brief for appellee, Elizabeth Scheffee.
        _______________
            Kenneth  P.  Altshuler  and  Altshuler  &  Vincent  on  brief  for
            ______________________       _____________________
        appellee, Lynda Doyle.
            Craig  J. Rancourt and  Law Office of  Craig J.  Rancourt on brief
            __________________      _________________________________
        for appellee, Joseph Molnar.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________
                 Per Curiam.   Plaintiff/appellant James W.  Vogt appeals
                 __________

            the entry of judgment by the United States District Court for

            the  District of  Maine for  defendants/appellees.   Vogt had

            sought  both damages  and injunctive  relief, pursuant  to 42

            U.S.C.    1983, for alleged injuries stemming  from a divorce

            and custody proceeding  in state court.   We summarily affirm

            essentially  for the reasons given by the district court.  We

            add only the following.

                 The sole colorable constitutional issue raised in Vogt's

            complaint is a violation of his  right to a fair trial due to

            an  alleged conspiracy  among  appellants.   As the  district

            court correctly  determined,  Vogt  alleges  a  violation  of

            procedural due process.  See Senra v. Cunningham, 9 F.3d 168,
                                     ___ _____    __________

            173 (1st Cir. 1993) (claim of "'distortion and corruption  of

            the process  of law', such  as 'falsification of  evidence or

            some  other egregious conduct resulting in a denial of a fair

            trial'"  constitutes procedural  due process  claim) (quoting

            Torres  v. Superintendent of  Police, 893 F.2d  404, 410 (1st
            ______     _________________________

            Cir. 1990)).  Since the state of Maine provides Vogt with  an

            adequate remedy for  any errors  in his  state trial,  either

            through direct  appeal or  through a motion  for relief  from

            judgment, Vogt's  claim must fail. See  Perez-Ruiz v. Crespo-
                                               ___  __________    _______

            Guillen, 25  F.3d 40,  42-43  (1st Cir.  1994) (existence  of
            _______

            adequate  state postdeprivation remedy  fatal to section 1983

            procedural due  process claim); see also  Holloway v. Walker,
                                            ___ ____  ________    ______

            784  F.2d 1287, 1290-93 (5th  Cir.) (right to appeal judgment

                                         -2-

            in state court precludes   1983 suit for alleged violation of

            right to fair trial), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 984 (1986).
                                  _____ ______

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

                                         -3-