
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          May 19, 1995                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                 FOR THE FIRST CIRCUTI                                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.  Ackerman,            ________________                            _____________________        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   Plaintiff Robert Spickler  has filed a  42                 __________            U.S.C.    1983 action against the State of Maine, complaining            that the state courts have deprived him of an impartial forum            in violation  of his  First and Fourteenth  Amendment rights.            As  plaintiff's complaint  is irreparably  flawed  in various            respects, we affirm the amended judgment of dismissal.                   First, it is now settled that a state is not a  "person"            subject to  suit under   1983.  See, e.g., Hafer v. Melo, 502                                            ___  ____  _____    ____            U.S.  21,  25-26  (1991); Will  v.  Michigan  Dep't  of State                                      ____      _________________________            Police, 491 U.S.  58, 62-70  (1989).  Second,  the action  is            ______            barred by  the Eleventh  Amendment.  Contrary  to plaintiff's            suggestion, the enactment of   1983 did not serve to abrogate            the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity.  See, e.g., Quern v.                                                      ___  ____  _____            Jordan,  440 U.S.  332,  342 (1979).    And contrary  to  his            ______            further contention, such immunity extends  to actions seeking            injunctive  relief against a state as well as to those simply            seeking  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  that lower federal            courts  lack  jurisdiction  "over  challenges  to state-court            decisions  in  particular  cases  arising  out  of   judicial            proceedings even  if those  challenges allege that  the state            court's action was unconstitutional."   District of  Columbia                                                    _____________________            Court of  Appeals  v.  Feldman,  460 U.S.  462,  486  (1983);            _________________      _______            accord,  e.g., Rooker  v. Fidelity  Trust Co.,  263  U.S. 413            ______   ____  ______     ___________________            (1923).   Finally, most if  not all of  the instant complaint            falls  within  the  scope  of  the  1987  injunction  barring            plaintiff from  filing further federal  court actions without            leave of  court.  For the  reasons recited above, as  well as            those enumerated  by the  district court,  we agree  with the            court's conclusion that plaintiff has not made a prima  facie            showing as required by that injunction.                  Affirmed.                  _________                                         -3-
