Messer v. Messer
Case Date: 04/14/1994
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 93-1676
|
April 14, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 93-1676 TERESA FAYE MESSER, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. JOSEPH E. MESSER, Defendant, Appellant. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE [Hon. Martin F. Loughlin, Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________ ____________________ Before Breyer, Chief Judge, ___________ Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Joseph E. Messer on brief pro se. ________________ J. Normand Jacques on brief for appellee. __________________ ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. To the extent appellant was seeking to __________ remove state court actions to federal court, the petition for removal was properly dismissed because it was untimely. 28 U.S.C. 1446(b) (30 days for removal). To the extent appellant sought to bring a new action in federal court challenging the rulings of the state court, the action was properly dismissed because lower federal courts lack authority to review state court judgments even when the judgments are challenged as unconstitutional. Rooker v. ______ Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); Willhauck v. __________________ _________ Halpin, 953 F.2d 689, 704 n.14 (1st Cir. 1991); ("the Civil ______ Rights Act is not a vehicle for collateral attack upon final state court judgments"); Lancellotti v. Fay, 909 F.2d 15, 16 ___________ ___ (1st Cir. 1990). Affirmed. ________ |