August 2, 1995          [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT











                                 ____________________



        No. 94-2321



                                   SHIRLEY ADAMSON,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                                 NANCY MILLS, et al.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Shirley Adamson on brief pro se.
            _______________

            Andrew  Ketterer, Attorney  General, and Leanne  Robbin, Assistant
            ________________                         ______________

        Attorney General, on brief for appellees.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________



















































                      Per Curiam.  We  have carefully reviewed the briefs
                      __________



            and  record and find no merit in plaintiff's contentions that



            defendants acted  in the  clear absence of  any jurisdiction.



            Under Maine law, state district courts have jurisdiction over



            the  civil violations in question as well as power to enforce



            their  orders through contempt.   20-A Me. Rev.  Stat. Ann.  



            5053(2);  14  Me.   Rev.  Stat.  Ann.     252.    Plaintiff's



            contention  that a  prosecutor  must file  a civil  violation
                                __________



            complaint supported  by an affidavit before  a district court
                                       _________



            acquires jurisdiction is wrong.   17-A Me. Rev. Stat.  Ann.  



            17.   As for plaintiff's challenge to her arrest, the court's



            civil  order of arrest was supported by a sworn motion signed
                                                      _____



            by an  assistant district attorney which  clearly established



            probable  cause  to  believe  plaintiff  had  violated  court



            orders.  The  assistant district attorney's sworn  statements



            were  equivalent  to  affidavits.    Plaintiff's  action  was



            properly  dismissed on  judicial  immunity grounds,  and  the



            district court  did not err  in denying discovery  or further



            time  for amendment  since plaintiff  failed to  indicate any



            viable basis for overcoming defendants' immunity.



                      Plaintiff's motion  to strike defendants'  brief is



            denied.



                      Affirmed.
                      ________















                                         -2-