Greco v. Fitzpatrick
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Greco v. Fitzpatrick. Read the opinion of the Court — 59 F.3d 164 →
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
June 23, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-2248
FRANK A. GRECO, M.D., Ph.D.,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
MARY C. FITZPATRICK, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Frank A. Greco, M.D., Ph.D., on brief pro se. ___________________________
Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and Rebecca P. McIntyre, __________________ _____________________
Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. We affirm the judgment substantially for __________
the reasons recited in the district court's decision of
November 10, 1994, adding only the following comments.
In objecting to the district court's reliance on the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, see Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., ______________ ___ ______ ___________________
263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. _____________________________________
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), plaintiff argues that he is not _______
seeking to overturn any state court judgment per se and that,
in fact, many of the challenges here advanced to the probate
court proceedings were never pursued in the state court
system. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine recognizes that a ______________
federal district court lacks appellate jurisdiction to review
a state court judgment. See, e.g., id. at 482-86; Gash ___ ____ ___ ____
Assocs. v. Village of Rosemont, Ill., 995 F.2d 726, 728-29 _______ __________________________
(7th Cir. 1993); Lancellotti v. Fay, 909 F.2d 15, 17 (1st ___________ ___
Cir. 1990). What plaintiff fails to recognize is that such
"impermissible appellate review may occur when a district
court is asked to entertain a claim that was not even argued
in the state court but is 'inextricably intertwined' with the
state court judgment." Ritter v. Ross, 992 F.2d 750, 753 ______ ____
(7th Cir. 1993) (quoting Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483 n.16), _______
cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 694 (1994); accord, e.g., Keene _____________ ______ ____ _____
Corp. v. Cass, 908 F.2d 293, 296-97 (8th Cir. 1990). The _____ ____
multiple claims here presented--alleging violations of such
matters as due process, equal protection, and the right to
counsel--are sufficiently "intertwined" with the probate
court proceedings so as to fall within the Rooker-Feldman ______________
doctrine's embrace. Plaintiff's remedy is to appeal within
the state court system and then, if necessary, to petition
the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
We add that plaintiff's various allegations would falter
even if the merits were to be considered. To list just some
of the infirmities affecting his complaint: In order to
state a cause of action under the second clause of 42 U.S.C.
1985(2), plaintiff was required to allege class-based,
invidiously discriminatory animus, see, e.g., Hahn v. ___ ____ ____
Sargent, 523 F.2d 461, 469 (1st Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 _______ ____________
U.S. 904 (1976); divorced fathers seeking custody of their
children do not form a protected class under 1985. No
Sixth Amendment right to counsel obtains in civil proceedings
of this nature. See, e.g., Wilson v. State of New Hampshire, ___ ____ ______ ______________________
18 F.3d 40, 41 (1st Cir. 1994) (per curiam). Unauthorized
conduct that cannot be foreseen and controlled does not
constitute a due process violation "until and unless [the
state] ... refuses to provide a suitable postdeprivation
remedy," Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); no such ______ ______
showing has been made here. With respect to those claims
that were or could have been presented in state court,
-3-
relitigation thereof would be barred on preclusion grounds.
See, e.g., Willhauck v. Halpin, 953 F.2d 689, 705 (1st Cir. ___ ____ _________ ______
1991). The judicial defendants would be immune from most if
not all of the damage claims here presented. See, e.g., ___ ____
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (per curiam).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Greco v. Fitzpatrick, (1st Cir. 1995).
Greco v. Fitzpatrick (Greco v. Fitzpatrick) — 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)
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
460 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Hudson v. Palmer
468 U.S. 517 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police
491 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Mireles v. Waco
502 U.S. 9 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Hafer v. Melo
502 U.S. 21 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Robert C. Hahn v. Francis W. Sargent
523 F.2d 461 (First Circuit, 1975)
Alfred Lancellotti v. Honorable Thomas F. Fay, Etc.
909 F.2d 15 (First Circuit, 1990)
Francis A. Willhauck, Jr. v. Paul Halpin
953 F.2d 689 (First Circuit, 1992)
Gash Associates v. Village of Rosemont, Illinois
995 F.2d 726 (Seventh Circuit, 1993)
Kenneth E. Wilson v. State of New Hampshire
18 F.3d 40 (First Circuit, 1994)
Keene Corp. v. Cass
908 F.2d 293 (Eighth Circuit, 1990)
Ritter v. Ross
992 F.2d 750 (Seventh Circuit, 1993)