October 24, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-