Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bogle v. Libel, 94-1452 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 94-1452 Visitors: 18
Filed: Oct. 24, 1994
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: October 24, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ___________________ No. 94-1452 VINCENT BOGLE, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. JOHN T. LIEBEL, ET AL. Plaintiff failed to state any viable basis for relief under state tort law or federal civil rights laws.
USCA1 Opinion









October 24, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-







Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer