USCA1 Opinion
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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-