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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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. McInty

___________________

Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.

____________________

____________________

Per Curiam.
__________

the

reasons

We

affirm the judgment

recited in

the

district

substantially for

court's decision

of

November 10, 1994, adding only the following comments.

In

objecting to

the district

Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
______________

see Rooker
___ ______

court's reliance

on the

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

system.

proceedings

The

were never

Rooker-Feldman
______________

pursued

doctrine

in

the state

recognizes

court

that

federal district court lacks appellate jurisdiction to review

state

Assocs.
_______

court judgment.

See,
___

e.g.,
____

id. at
___

v. Village of Rosemont, Ill., 995

__________________________

(7th Cir. 1993);

Cir. 1990).

Lancellotti v.
___________

What

F.2d 726, 728-29

Fay, 909 F.2d

___

15, 17

plaintiff fails to recognize is

"impermissible appellate

court is asked

482-86; Gash
____

review may

occur

(1st

that such

when a

district

to entertain a claim that was not even argued

in the state court but is 'inextricably intertwined' with the

state court judgment."

(7th Cir.

1993) (quoting

cert. denied,
_____________

Corp. v.
_____

Ritter
______

114 S.

Cass, 908 F.2d

____

v. Ross, 992
____

Feldman, 460
_______

Ct. 694

U.S.

F.2d 750,

at 483

(1994); accord,
______

293, 296-97 (8th

753

n.16),

e.g., Keene
____ _____

Cir. 1990).

The

multiple claims here

matters

as due process,

counsel--are

court

presented--alleging violations of

sufficiently

proceedings so

doctrine's embrace.

the state

equal protection, and

as to

"intertwined"

fall within

Plaintiff's remedy is

court system and

with

such

the right to

the

probate

the Rooker-Feldman
______________

to appeal within

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

of

the

be considered.

infirmities affecting

state a cause of action under

1985(2),

invidiously

plaintiff

his complaint:

In

order to

the second clause of 42 U.S.C.

was required

discriminatory

To list just some

animus,

to

allege class-based,

see,
___

e.g.,
____

Hahn
____

v.

Sargent, 523 F.2d 461, 469 (1st Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425
_______
____________

U.S. 904

(1976); divorced

children

do not

form a

fathers seeking custody

protected class

under

of their

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

conduct

that

constitute

state]

remedy,"

cannot be

a due

...

foreseen

provide

curiam).

and

process violation

refuses to

Unauthorized

controlled does

"until and

not

unless [the

suitable postdeprivation

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); no such

______
______

showing has been

that were

Cir. 1994) (per

or

made here.

could

With respect

have been

-3-

presented

to those

in

state

claims

court,

relitigation thereof would

See, e.g., Willhauck v.

___ ____ _________

1991).

not

Halpin, 953 F.2d 689, 705

______

grounds.

(1st Cir.

The judicial defendants would be immune from most if

all of

Mireles v.
_______

the damage

Waco, 502
____

Commonwealth and

defendants in

within the

Melo,
____

be barred on preclusion

claims here

U.S. 9 (1991)

the probate

their official

See, e.g.,
___ ____

(per curiam).

court (along with

capacities) are

meaning of 42 U.S.C.

502 U.S. 21, 25-26

presented.

1983.

(1991); Will v.
____

State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 62-70 (1989).

____________

And the

the private

not "persons"

See, e.g., Hafer v.

___ ____ _____

Michigan Dep't of
_________________

Affirmed.
_________

-4-