May 19, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUTI


                                 ____________________


        No.  94-2240

                                 ROBERT D. SPICKLER,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                   STATE OF MAINE,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________
                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Robert D. Spickler on brief pro se.
            __________________
            Andrew  Ketterer,  Attorney  General,  and  Francis  E.  Ackerman,
            ________________                            _____________________
        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________























                 Per Curiam.   Plaintiff Robert Spickler  has filed a  42
                 __________

            U.S.C.    1983 action against the State of Maine, complaining

            that the state courts have deprived him of an impartial forum

            in violation  of his  First and Fourteenth  Amendment rights.

            As  plaintiff's complaint  is irreparably  flawed  in various

            respects, we affirm the amended judgment of dismissal.  

                 First, it is now settled that a state is not a  "person"

            subject to  suit under   1983.  See, e.g., Hafer v. Melo, 502
                                            ___  ____  _____    ____

            U.S.  21,  25-26  (1991); Will  v.  Michigan  Dep't  of State
                                      ____      _________________________

            Police, 491 U.S.  58, 62-70  (1989).  Second,  the action  is
            ______

            barred by  the Eleventh  Amendment.  Contrary  to plaintiff's

            suggestion, the enactment of   1983 did not serve to abrogate

            the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity.  See, e.g., Quern v.
                                                      ___  ____  _____

            Jordan,  440 U.S.  332,  342 (1979).    And contrary  to  his
            ______

            further contention, such immunity extends  to actions seeking

            injunctive  relief against a state as well as to those simply

            seeking  damages.  See,  e.g., Puerto  Rico Aqueduct  & Sewer
                               ___   ____  ______________________________

            Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 684, 688-89 (1993);
            _____    ____________________

            Pennhurst State School  & Hosp.  v. Halderman,  465 U.S.  89,
            _______________________________     _________

            100-01 (1984); Cory v. White, 457 U.S. 85, 90-91 (1982).1
                           ____    _____






                                
            ____________________

            1.  Plaintiff  does  not  argue  that Maine  has  effected  a
            general waiver of its Eleventh Amendment immunity in cases of
            this  nature.  We thus need not address the issue, other than
            to  note that such a  contention has been elsewhere rejected.
            See, e.g.,  Grenier v. Kennebec  County, Maine, 733  F. Supp.
            ___  ____   _______    _______________________
            455 (D. Me. 1990).

















                 Third, plaintiff fails to appreciate  that lower federal

            courts  lack  jurisdiction  "over  challenges  to state-court

            decisions  in  particular  cases  arising  out  of   judicial

            proceedings even  if those  challenges allege that  the state

            court's action was unconstitutional."   District of  Columbia
                                                    _____________________

            Court of  Appeals  v.  Feldman,  460 U.S.  462,  486  (1983);
            _________________      _______

            accord,  e.g., Rooker  v. Fidelity  Trust Co.,  263  U.S. 413
            ______   ____  ______     ___________________

            (1923).   Finally, most if  not all of  the instant complaint

            falls  within  the  scope  of  the  1987  injunction  barring

            plaintiff from  filing further federal  court actions without

            leave of  court.  For the  reasons recited above, as  well as

            those enumerated  by the  district court,  we agree  with the

            court's conclusion that plaintiff has not made a prima  facie

            showing as required by that injunction. 

                 Affirmed. 
                 _________























                                         -3-