USCA1 Opinion
August 2, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-2321
SHIRLEY ADAMSON,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
NANCY MILLS, 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
Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Shirley Adamson on brief pro se. _______________
Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, and Leanne Robbin, Assistant ________________ ______________
Attorney General, on brief for appellees.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the briefs __________
and record and find no merit in plaintiff's contentions that
defendants acted in the clear absence of any jurisdiction.
Under Maine law, state district courts have jurisdiction over
the civil violations in question as well as power to enforce
their orders through contempt. 20-A Me. Rev. Stat. Ann.
5053(2); 14 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 252. Plaintiff's
contention that a prosecutor must file a civil violation __________
complaint supported by an affidavit before a district court _________
acquires jurisdiction is wrong. 17-A Me. Rev. Stat. Ann.
17. As for plaintiff's challenge to her arrest, the court's
civil order of arrest was supported by a sworn motion signed _____
by an assistant district attorney which clearly established
probable cause to believe plaintiff had violated court
orders. The assistant district attorney's sworn statements
were equivalent to affidavits. Plaintiff's action was
properly dismissed on judicial immunity grounds, and the
district court did not err in denying discovery or further
time for amendment since plaintiff failed to indicate any
viable basis for overcoming defendants' immunity.
Plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' brief is
denied.
Affirmed. ________
-2-