Filed: May 07, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: and Lynch, Circuit Judge.Vincent P. Murray on brief pro se., Jeffry S. Perlow and Moretti & Perlow on brief for appellee.May 7, 2004, Per Curiam.constitutional claim against appellees is not cognizable.Miranda v. Clark County, Nevada, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir.
Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
Nos. 03-2137
03-2291
VINCENT P. MURRAY,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
JEFFRY PERLOW, LAW OFFICE OF MORETTI AND PERLOW,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Circuit Judge,
Stahl, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
Vincent P. Murray on brief pro se.
Jeffry S. Perlow and Moretti & Perlow on brief for appellee.
May 7, 2004
Per Curiam. The district court's judgment and its denial
of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion are affirmed. Any
constitutional claim against appellees is not cognizable. Cf.
Miranda v. Clark County, Nevada, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir.),
cert. denied,
124 S. Ct. 64 (2003) (assistant public defender not
a state actor when performing traditional role of defense lawyer in
criminal proceeding; constitutional claim against public defender
not cognizable). The only potential claims here are for legal
malpractice and/or breach of contract; but the federal court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over any such claims in this dispute.
See 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332.
Affirmed.
-2-
