USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-1875
ALFREDO G. HUALDE-REDIN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
ROYAL BANK OF PUERTO RICO, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Alfredo G. Hualde-Redin on brief pro se. _______________________
Charles De Mier-LeBlanc and De Corral & De Mier on brief for ________________________ _____________________
appellee Royal Bank of Puerto Rico.
Mildred Caban and Goldman Antonetti & Cordova on brief for _____________ ______________________________
appellees Ramon Dapena, Esq., Jorge Souss, Esq., Ivonne Palerm, Esq.,
Goldman Antonetti & Cordova, Carlos Del Valle, and American
International Insurance Co.
____________________
August 2, 1996
____________________
Per Curiam. The motion to recuse Judge Torruella is __________
denied.
We summarily affirm the dismissal of plaintiffs' action.
To the extent plaintiffs were asking the district court to
review, set aside, or effectively annul the Commonwealth
court orders, plaintiffs' action was properly dismissed
because the district court lacked jurisdiction to review
those orders. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, _____________________________
415-16 (1923); Lancellotti v. Fay, 909 F.2d 15, 17 (1st Cir. __________________
1990). The remainder of plaintiffs' action was properly
dismissed because plaintiffs failed adequately to state any
claim under either federal or Commonwealth law against
defendants. The district court did not abuse its discretion
in failing to afford plaintiffs any further opportunity to
amend their complaint. Nor is there any merit in plaintiffs'
claims of bias.
Appellees ask in their brief for double costs and
attorneys fees to be assessed because of appellants'
repetitive, frivolous filings. Appellants' litigation
tactics are abusive. Their filings are extremely verbose,
repetitive, and often incoherent. They continue to press
arguments which we have rejected in appellants' other
appeals. They do not reserve their reply brief for new
arguments, but rather repeat at length material presented in
their main brief. And their appeals have been frivolous.
-2-
Nevertheless, we must deny appellees' request because they
did not present their request for sanctions in a motion
separate from their brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 38 and 1994 ___
advisory committee note.
Affirmed. ________
-3-