
USCA1 Opinion

	




          June 24, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-2336                                  CYNTHIA M. KUETER,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                               ALLAN RANCOURT, 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                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Cynthia M. Kueter on brief pro se.            _________________            Alton C.  Stevens and Marden, Dubord,  Bernier &  Stevens on brief            _________________     ___________________________________        for  appellees, Allan  Rancourt  and Kennebec  Federal Savings  & Loan        Association.            Robert  E.  Sandy, Jr.  and  Sherman, Sandy  &  Lee on  brief  for            _____________________        ______________________        appellees, Hubert  C. Kueter, Robert  E. Sandy, Jr., William   A. Lee,        and Sherman, Sandy & Lee.            Andrew  Ketterer,  Attorney  General,  and  Paul  Stern, Assistant            ________________                            ___________        Attorney  General  on  Motion   for  Summary  Disposition,  for  State        appellees.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.  We have reviewed  the record and have                      ___________            read  the  parties' briefs  and  memorandum.   We  affirm the            judgment  of the district court for the reasons stated in the            Recommended  Decision  of  the  magistrate  judge  which  was            adopted by the district  court.  The 100-page  second amended            complaint plainly was "redundant, rambling,  and unorganized"            as  the magistrate  judge described.   Thus,  to dismiss  it,            especially after plaintiff  had been warned  to file a  short            and concise complaint, was  not an abuse of discretion.   See                                                                      ___            Kuehl  v. F.D.I.C., 8 F.3d 905, 908-09 (1st Cir. 1993) (where            _____     ________            plaintiffs had been  warned that their complaint was too long            and  had been  given  a  chance  to  cure  the  problem,  the            dismissal of their new, rambling 43-page complaint was not an            abuse of discretion), cert.  denied, 114 S. Ct.  1545 (1994).                                  _____________            We add that, in  any event, the complaint suffered  from more            fatal defects:                      1.   The district court is without  power to review            the state court decisions -- the relief plaintiff clearly was            seeking.   See  District  of  Columbia Court  of  Appeals  v.                       ___  _________________________________________            Feldman,  460 U.S. 462, 476  (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust            _______                              ______    ______________            Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-416 (1923).            ___                      2.   Plaintiff cannot  bring a civil  rights action            under 42 U.S.C.    1983  against private parties.   The  mere            fact  that these parties  resorted to, or  appeared in, state            court  is insufficient to turn  them into state  actors.  See                                                                      ___            Casa Marie, Inc. v.  Superior Court of Puerto Rico,  988 F.2d            ________________     _____________________________            252,  259 (1st  Cir. 1993).    Nor do  plaintiff's conclusory            allegations that  these defendants were in  a conspiracy with            the  state court judges suffice to bring them within   1983's            reach.  See id.                    ___ ___                      3.   The  state judges  are absolutely  immune from            claims for money damages.  See Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d  1,                                       ___ ___    _________            2 (1st Cir. 1989) (per curiam).                      The judgment  of  the district  court is  affirmed.                                                                ________            See Local Rule 27.1.            ___                                         -3-
