Bleicken v. Perkins
This text of Bleicken v. Perkins (Bleicken v. Perkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Bleicken v. Perkins, (1st Cir. 1993).
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
December 29, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 93-1531
ERIC V. BLEICKEN,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
HAROLD PERKINS, ETC., ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
__________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
___________________
Before
Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
______________
___________________
Eric V. Bleicken on brief pro se.
________________
__________________
__________________
Per Curiam. Pro se plaintiff Eric Bleicken appeals from the
__________ ___ __
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint for the failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We have
thoroughly reviewed the record and Bleicken's submissions on
appeal. We affirm the dismissal for the reasons stated in the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation of February 12,
1993. We add that, where none of the appellant's prolific
filings demonstrate that he was ever incarcerated for contempt as
a result of his failure to pay child support, he has failed to
state a claim for damages for violation of his alleged right to
counsel. The Supreme Court has stated that "actual imprisonment"
is the "line defining the constitutional right to appointment of
counsel." See Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 373-74 (1979)
___ _____ ________
(applying Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments in context of state
criminal proceeding). Since Bleicken has not alleged that he was
imprisoned, he has failed to state a claim for violation of this
right.
To the extent the complaint might be construed to state a
claim for equitable relief against Bleicken's future
incarceration for nonsupport absent appointed counsel, the claim
is too speculative. Should Bleicken be subjected to further
contempt proceedings for nonsupport, he may assert indigence as a
defense. If he loses and is incarcerated, he may appeal to the
New Hampshire Supreme Court and, if need be, to the Supreme Court
of the United States. See Henkel v. Bradshaw, 483 F.2d 1386, 1390
___ ______ ________
-2-
(4th Cir. 1973). If he remains incarcerated, he may then seek
federal habeas relief. Compare Mann v. Hendrian, 871 F.2d 51, 53
_______ ____ ________
(7th Cir. 1989)(affirming dismissal of 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit for
declaratory and injunctive relief against state court judge's
alleged policy of refusing to appoint counsel for indigent
defendants subject to contempt proceedings for failure to pay
child support). However, the present complaint does not state a
claim for injunctive relief or damages for violation of
Bleicken's alleged right to counsel.
Bleicken's remaining claims are too numerous to recount. By
and large, they allege violations of state law without reference
to federal rights. These alleged violations of New Hampshire law
do not state claims for constitutional violations actionable
under 42 U.S.C. 1983. See Malachowski v. City of Keene, 787 F.2d
___ ___________ _____________
704, 708 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 828 (1986). Indeed,
_____ ______
the complaint essentially seeks relief from numerous orders
entered by the New Hampshire superior court in Bleicken's divorce
and child custody dispute, particularly the child support order.
"It is crystal clear that we lack appellate or non-habeas
jurisdiction over decisions of the courts of any state ....".
Rivera-Puig v. Garcia-Rosario, 983 F.2d 311, 317 (1st Cir.
___________ ______________
1992). These asserted claims of error were properly dismissed.
See Lancellotti v. Fay, 909 F.2d 15, 17 (1st Cir. 1990).
___ ___________ ___
The district court did not specifically address Bleicken's
claim that Judges Perkins, Morrill and Commissioner King
-3-
3
conspired to extort Ellene Bleicken's share of the proceeds of
the sale of the marital home to prevent Bleicken from hiring
counsel. Bleicken's complaint also may be construed as alleging
that all of the defendants conspired against him as a result of
"gender bias" and "prosecutorial vindictiveness." These
conspiracy allegations are wholly conclusory and thus
insufficient. See Slotnick v. Staviskey, 560 F.2d 31, 33 (1st
___ ________ _________
Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1077 (1978).
_____ ______
We also agree with the district court's conclusion that
defendants Perkins, Morrill, Carlson, Vaughan and King were
entitled to absolute immunity for their judicial and quasi-
judicial acts. See Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2-3 (1st Cir.
___ ___ _________
1989)(per curiam). While Bleicken has made the conclusory
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Scott v. Illinois
440 U.S. 367 (Supreme Court, 1979)
George Edward Henkel v. The Honorable Winston L. Bradshaw, Circuit Court Judge of the Fifth Judicial District of the State of Oregon
483 F.2d 1386 (Fifth Circuit, 1973)
Lester Slotnick v. Harold Staviskey
560 F.2d 31 (First Circuit, 1977)
Ramon Rondon Pinto v. Carlos Jimenez Nettleship, Etc.
737 F.2d 130 (First Circuit, 1984)
Myron Mann v. James Hendrian
871 F.2d 51 (Seventh Circuit, 1989)
Dr. Gladys Cok v. Louis Cosentino
876 F.2d 1 (First Circuit, 1989)
Alfred Lancellotti v. Honorable Thomas F. Fay, Etc.
909 F.2d 15 (First Circuit, 1990)
Christopher Amann v. Stow School System
982 F.2d 644 (First Circuit, 1992)
Miguel Rivera-Puig v. Hon. Gabriel Garcia-Rosario
983 F.2d 311 (First Circuit, 1992)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
Bleicken v. Perkins, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bleicken-v-perkins-ca1-1993.