June 24, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-2336
CYNTHIA M. KUETER,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
ALLAN RANCOURT, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
Cynthia M. Kueter on brief pro se.
Alton C. Stevens and Marden, Dubord, Bernier & Stevens on brief
for appellees, Allan Rancourt and Kennebec Federal Savings & Loan
Association.
Robert E. Sandy, Jr. and Sherman, Sandy & Lee on brief for
appellees, Hubert C. Kueter, Robert E. Sandy, Jr., William A. Lee,
and Sherman, Sandy & Lee.
Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, and Paul Stern, Assistant
Attorney General on Motion for Summary Disposition, for State
appellees.
Per Curiam. We have reviewed the record and have
read the parties' briefs and memorandum. We affirm the
judgment of the district court for the reasons stated in the
Recommended Decision of the magistrate judge which was
adopted by the district court. The 100-page second amended
complaint plainly was "redundant, rambling, and unorganized"
as the magistrate judge described. Thus, to dismiss it,
especially after plaintiff had been warned to file a short
and concise complaint, was not an abuse of discretion. See
Kuehl v. F.D.I.C., 8 F.3d 905, 908-09 (1st Cir. 1993) (where
plaintiffs had been warned that their complaint was too long
and had been given a chance to cure the problem, the
dismissal of their new, rambling 43-page complaint was not an
abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1545 (1994).
We add that, in any event, the complaint suffered from more
fatal defects:
1. The district court is without power to review
the state court decisions -- the relief plaintiff clearly was
seeking. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust
Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-416 (1923).
2. Plaintiff cannot bring a civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against private parties. The mere
fact that these parties resorted to, or appeared in, state
court is insufficient to turn them into state actors. See
Casa Marie, Inc. v. Superior Court of Puerto Rico, 988 F.2d
252, 259 (1st Cir. 1993). Nor do plaintiff's conclusory
allegations that these defendants were in a conspiracy with
the state court judges suffice to bring them within 1983's
reach. See id.
3. The state judges are absolutely immune from
claims for money damages. See Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1,
2 (1st Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
See Local Rule 27.1.
-3-