
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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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-
