Bogle v. Libel
Case Date: 10/24/1994
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 94-1452
|
October 24, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ___________________ No. 94-1452 VINCENT BOGLE, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. JOHN T. LIEBEL, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. __________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Frank H. Freedman, Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________ ___________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges. ______________ ___________________ Vincent O. Bogle on brief pro se. ________________ Edward M. Pikula and Matroni, DiMauro, Liebel, Pikula & _________________ ____________________________________ deSousa on brief for appellees. _______ __________________ __________________ -2- Per Curiam. The district court properly dismissed ___________ plaintiff's action for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. We explain briefly. If the state probate court incorrectly concluded plaintiff had been properly served, erred in refusing to order blood tests, improperly assessed the evidence, or made other mistakes, plaintiff's remedy was to appeal within the state court system and then petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. Plaintiff may not litigate these type of challenges to the state court proceedings in a lower federal court because lower federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state court proceedings. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust _________________________ Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); Lancellotti v. Fay, 909 ___ ___________________ F.2d 15, 17 (1st Cir. 1990). Plaintiff failed to state any viable basis for relief under state tort law or federal civil rights laws. Plaintiff did not identify any unprivileged, defamatory statement and failed to allege either any class-based invidiously discriminatory animus, Hahn v. Sargent, 523 F.2d 461, 469 ________________ (1st Cir. 1975) (class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus required to state a claim under the portion of 1985(2) proscribing conspiracies to interfere with the administration of justice in state courts), cert. denied, 425 ____________ U.S. 904 (1976), or facts that would rise to the level of an actionable conspiracy. -2- We have considered all of plaintiff's arguments and have found them to be without merit. Affirmed. ________ -3- |