Hualde-Redin v. Royal Bank ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT







                                 ____________________





        No. 95-1875



                           ALFREDO G. HUALDE-REDIN, ET AL.,



                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,



                                          v.



                          ROYAL BANK OF PUERTO RICO, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Alfredo G. Hualde-Redin on brief pro se.
_______________________

            Charles  De Mier-LeBlanc  and  De Corral  & De  Mier on  brief for
________________________       _____________________

        appellee Royal Bank of Puerto Rico.

            Mildred Caban  and  Goldman  Antonetti  &  Cordova  on  brief  for
_____________       ______________________________

        appellees Ramon Dapena, Esq., Jorge  Souss, Esq., Ivonne Palerm, Esq.,

        Goldman   Antonetti  &  Cordova,   Carlos  Del  Valle,   and  American

        International Insurance Co.



                                 ____________________



                                    August 2, 1996



                                 ____________________



























                 Per Curiam.   The  motion to recuse  Judge Torruella  is
__________



            denied.



                 We summarily affirm the dismissal of plaintiffs' action.



            To the  extent plaintiffs were  asking the district  court to



            review,  set  aside, or  effectively  annul the  Commonwealth



            court  orders,  plaintiffs'  action  was  properly  dismissed



            because  the district  court  lacked  jurisdiction to  review



            those orders.   Rooker v.  Fidelity Trust Co., 263  U.S. 413,
_____________________________



            415-16 (1923); Lancellotti v. Fay,  909 F.2d 15, 17 (1st Cir.
__________________



            1990).   The  remainder of  plaintiffs'  action was  properly



            dismissed because  plaintiffs failed adequately  to state any



            claim  under  either  federal  or  Commonwealth  law  against



            defendants.   The district court did not abuse its discretion



            in  failing to afford  plaintiffs any further  opportunity to



            amend their complaint.  Nor is there any merit in plaintiffs'



            claims of bias.



                 Appellees  ask in  their  brief  for  double  costs  and



            attorneys  fees   to  be  assessed   because  of  appellants'



            repetitive,  frivolous   filings.     Appellants'  litigation



            tactics  are abusive.   Their filings are  extremely verbose,



            repetitive, and  often incoherent.   They  continue to  press



            arguments  which  we  have   rejected  in  appellants'  other



            appeals.   They  do not  reserve  their reply  brief for  new



            arguments,  but rather repeat at length material presented in



            their  main brief.   And their  appeals have  been frivolous.







                                         -2-



























            Nevertheless, we  must deny  appellees' request  because they



            did  not present  their  request for  sanctions  in a  motion



            separate from their brief.   See Fed. R. App. P.  38 and 1994
___



            advisory committee note.



                 Affirmed.
________























































































                                         -3-