USCA1 Opinion

May 19, 1995

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUTI
____________________
No.

94-2240
ROBERT D. SPICKLER,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MAINE,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Robert D. Spickler on brief pro se.

__________________
Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, and Francis E. Ackerm
________________
___________________
Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________

Per Curiam.
__________
U.S.C.

Plaintiff Robert Spickler

has filed a

42

1983 action against the State of Maine, complaining

that the state courts have deprived him of an impartial forum

in violation
As

of his

First and Fourteenth

plaintiff's complaint

is irreparably

Amendment rights.
flawed

in various

respects, we affirm the amended judgment of dismissal.

First, it is now settled that a state is not a
subject to
U.S.

21,

suit under
25-26

1983.

(1991); Will
____

"person"

See, e.g., Hafer v. Melo, 502

___ ____ _____
____
v.

Michigan Dep't of State

_________________________

Police, 491 U.S.

______
barred by

58, 62-70

the Eleventh

(1989).

Amendment.

suggestion, the enactment of

Second,
Contrary

440 U.S.

332,

seeking

to plaintiff's

342 (1979).

See, e.g., Quern v.

___ ____ _____
And contrary

further contention, such immunity extends

injunctive

is

1983 did not serve to abrogate

the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Jordan,
______

the action

to

his

to actions seeking

relief against a state as well as to those simply

damages.

See,
___

e.g., Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer

____ ______________________________

Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 684, 688-89 (1993);
_____
____________________
Pennhurst State School & Hosp.
_______________________________

v. Halderman,
_________

465 U.S.

89,

100-01 (1984); Cory v. White, 457 U.S. 85, 90-91 (1982).1

____
_____

____________________
1. Plaintiff does not argue that Maine has effected a
general waiver of its Eleventh Amendment immunity in cases of
this nature. We thus need not address the issue, other than
to note that such a contention has been elsewhere rejected.
See, e.g., Grenier v. Kennebec County, Maine, 733 F. Supp.
___ ____
_______
_______________________
455 (D. Me. 1990).

Third, plaintiff fails to appreciate

courts

lack

decisions

in

jurisdiction
particular

proceedings even

if those

"over

challenges

cases

arising

accord,
______

e.g., Rooker
____ ______

(1923).
falls

v.

judicial

challenges allege that

the state

Feldman,
_______

the

plaintiff from
leave of

court.

those enumerated

District of Columbia
_____________________

460 U.S.

462,

v. Fidelity Trust Co.,

___________________

Finally, most if
within

out

scope

not all of
of

the

by the

486
263

(1983);
U.S. 413

the instant complaint

1987

filing further federal

For the

to state-court
of

court's action was unconstitutional."

Court of Appeals
_________________

that lower federal

injunction

barring

court actions without

reasons recited above, as

district court,

we agree

well as
with the

court's conclusion that plaintiff has not made a prima

showing as required by that injunction.
Affirmed.
_________

facie

-3-