April 3, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-2163
JAMES W. VOGT,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
NANCY J. CHURCHILL, et al.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Cyr and Lynch,
Circuit Judges.
James W. Vogt, on brief pro se.
Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, Leanne Robbin, Assistant
Attorney General, and Thomas D. Warren, Assistant Attorney General, on
brief for appellees, Field, Carpenter, and Rushlaw.
Elizabeth G. Stouder, Thomas R. McKeon, and Richardson, Whitman,
Large & Badger, on brief for appellee, Nancy J. Churchill.
Mark G. Lavoie, Peter J. DeTroy, David I. Herzer, and Norman,
Hanson & DeTroy, on brief for appellee, Elizabeth Scheffee.
Kenneth P. Altshuler and Altshuler & Vincent on brief for
appellee, Lynda Doyle.
Craig J. Rancourt and Law Office of Craig J. Rancourt on brief
for appellee, Joseph Molnar.
Per Curiam. Plaintiff/appellant James W. Vogt appeals
the entry of judgment by the United States District Court for
the District of Maine for defendants/appellees. Vogt had
sought both damages and injunctive relief, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 1983, for alleged injuries stemming from a divorce
and custody proceeding in state court. We summarily affirm
essentially for the reasons given by the district court. We
add only the following.
The sole colorable constitutional issue raised in Vogt's
complaint is a violation of his right to a fair trial due to
an alleged conspiracy among appellants. As the district
court correctly determined, Vogt alleges a violation of
procedural due process. See Senra v. Cunningham, 9 F.3d 168,
173 (1st Cir. 1993) (claim of "'distortion and corruption of
the process of law', such as 'falsification of evidence or
some other egregious conduct resulting in a denial of a fair
trial'" constitutes procedural due process claim) (quoting
Torres v. Superintendent of Police, 893 F.2d 404, 410 (1st
Cir. 1990)). Since the state of Maine provides Vogt with an
adequate remedy for any errors in his state trial, either
through direct appeal or through a motion for relief from
judgment, Vogt's claim must fail. See Perez-Ruiz v. Crespo-
Guillen, 25 F.3d 40, 42-43 (1st Cir. 1994) (existence of
adequate state postdeprivation remedy fatal to section 1983
procedural due process claim); see also Holloway v. Walker,
784 F.2d 1287, 1290-93 (5th Cir.) (right to appeal judgment
-2-
in state court precludes 1983 suit for alleged violation of
right to fair trial), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 984 (1986).
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
-3-