June 24, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________





        No. 95-2336



                                  CYNTHIA M. KUETER,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                               ALLAN RANCOURT, 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



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Cynthia M. Kueter on brief pro se.
            _________________

            Alton C.  Stevens and Marden, Dubord,  Bernier &  Stevens on brief
            _________________     ___________________________________

        for  appellees, Allan  Rancourt  and Kennebec  Federal Savings  & Loan

        Association.

            Robert  E.  Sandy, Jr.  and  Sherman, Sandy  &  Lee on  brief  for
            _____________________        ______________________

        appellees, Hubert  C. Kueter, Robert  E. Sandy, Jr., William   A. Lee,

        and Sherman, Sandy & Lee.

            Andrew  Ketterer,  Attorney  General,  and  Paul  Stern, Assistant
            ________________                            ___________

        Attorney  General  on  Motion   for  Summary  Disposition,  for  State

        appellees.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________



































                      Per  Curiam.  We have reviewed  the record and have
                      ___________



            read  the  parties' briefs  and  memorandum.   We  affirm the



            judgment  of the district court for the reasons stated in the



            Recommended  Decision  of  the  magistrate  judge  which  was



            adopted by the district  court.  The 100-page  second amended



            complaint plainly was "redundant, rambling,  and unorganized"



            as  the magistrate  judge described.   Thus,  to dismiss  it,



            especially after plaintiff  had been warned  to file a  short



            and concise complaint, was  not an abuse of discretion.   See
                                                                      ___



            Kuehl  v. F.D.I.C., 8 F.3d 905, 908-09 (1st Cir. 1993) (where
            _____     ________



            plaintiffs had been  warned that their complaint was too long



            and  had been  given  a  chance  to  cure  the  problem,  the



            dismissal of their new, rambling 43-page complaint was not an



            abuse of discretion), cert.  denied, 114 S. Ct.  1545 (1994).
                                  _____________



            We add that, in  any event, the complaint suffered  from more



            fatal defects:



                      1.   The district court is without  power to review



            the state court decisions -- the relief plaintiff clearly was



            seeking.   See  District  of  Columbia Court  of  Appeals  v.
                       ___  _________________________________________



            Feldman,  460 U.S. 462, 476  (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust
            _______                              ______    ______________



            Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-416 (1923).
            ___



                      2.   Plaintiff cannot  bring a civil  rights action



            under 42 U.S.C.    1983  against private parties.   The  mere



            fact  that these parties  resorted to, or  appeared in, state



            court  is insufficient to turn  them into state  actors.  See
                                                                      ___































            Casa Marie, Inc. v.  Superior Court of Puerto Rico,  988 F.2d
            ________________     _____________________________



            252,  259 (1st  Cir. 1993).    Nor do  plaintiff's conclusory



            allegations that  these defendants were in  a conspiracy with



            the  state court judges suffice to bring them within   1983's



            reach.  See id.
                    ___ ___



                      3.   The  state judges  are absolutely  immune from



            claims for money damages.  See Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d  1,
                                       ___ ___    _________



            2 (1st Cir. 1989) (per curiam).



                      The judgment  of  the district  court is  affirmed.
                                                                ________



            See Local Rule 27.1.
            ___



































































                                         -3-