Campisi v. Maffeo

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided September 15, 1995·No. 95-1572·Published

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion



September 15, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 95-1572

CONSTANCE CAMPISI,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

ANGELA C. MAFFEO, ETC., ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Constance Campisi on brief pro se. _________________
Antonette S. Fernandez, William H. Carroll and Dillon & Carroll _______________________ ___________________ ________________
on brief for appellee Angela C. Maffeo, Trustee.
Timothy E. Sterritt on brief for appellee Alphonse A. Scott. ___________________

____________________

____________________

Per Curiam. The district court correctly dismissed __________

plaintiff's action for lack of federal jurisdiction. To the

extent plaintiff wanted the district court to review the

correctness of the state court decisions, plaintiff's action

was properly dismissed because lower federal courts lack

jurisdiction to review state court judgments. Rooker v. ______

Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). To the extent ___________________

plaintiff wanted the district court to hear and determine the

merits of her controversies with defendants and their

predecessors in title, the action was properly dismissed

because plaintiff's disputes, as described in her complaint,

amended complaint, and other papers, are not the type of

matters over which federal courts have jurisdiction. _______

Affirmed. ________

-3-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Campisi v. Maffeo, (1st Cir. 1995).

Campisi v. Maffeo (Campisi v. Maffeo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.
263 U.S. 413 (Supreme Court, 1924)