Messer v. Messer ( 1994 )

USCA1 Opinion

        April 14, 1994          [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________


        No. 93-1676 

                                 TERESA FAYE MESSER,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  JOSEPH E. MESSER,

                                Defendant, Appellant.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE


                [Hon. Martin F. Loughlin, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Joseph E. Messer on brief pro se.
            ________________
            J. Normand Jacques on brief for appellee.
            __________________


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________























                      Per Curiam.  To the extent appellant was seeking to
                      __________

            remove state court actions to federal court, the petition for

            removal was properly  dismissed because it was  untimely.  28

            U.S.C.    1446(b)  (30  days for  removal).   To  the  extent

            appellant  sought to  bring  a new  action  in federal  court

            challenging the  rulings of the  state court, the  action was

            properly   dismissed  because   lower  federal   courts  lack

            authority  to  review state  court  judgments  even when  the

            judgments are  challenged  as unconstitutional.    Rooker  v.
                                                               ______

            Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); Willhauck v.
            __________________                               _________

            Halpin, 953 F.2d 689,  704 n.14 (1st Cir. 1991);  ("the Civil
            ______

            Rights  Act is not a vehicle for collateral attack upon final

            state court judgments"); Lancellotti v. Fay, 909 F.2d 15,  16
                                     ___________    ___

            (1st Cir. 1990).

                      Affirmed.
                      ________