
USCA1 Opinion

	




          June 23, 1993                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 93-1519                                 MARY SEUFERT FISCHER,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                                 PHILLIP A. ROLLINS,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                       [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]                                           ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Mary Seufert Fischer on various motions pro se.            ____________________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.   Plaintiff has appealed  from an order                      __________            denying  in forma  pauperis status.    The appeal  is timely.            Fiore v.  Washington County Community  Mental Health  Center,            _____     __________________________________________________            960 F.2d 229, 234-35 (1st Cir. 1992).                      We   bypass   the   question  whether   plaintiff's            financial  condition  qualified  her for  in  forma  pauperis            status1   because  we  conclude  that  plaintiff's  complaint            "lacks an arguable basis  either in law or in fact."  Neitzke                                                                  _______            v.  Williams,  490  U.S.  319,  325  (1989).    Consequently,                ________            plaintiff's action should be  dismissed as frivolous under 28            U.S.C.   1915(d).  We explain briefly.                      Plaintiff is  not entitled  to relief on  her claim            for damages  against state court judges.   Stump v. Sparkman,                                                       _____    ________            435  U.S. 349  (1978); Pierson  v. Ray,  386 U.S.  547 (1967)                                   _______     ___            (absolute judicial  immunity).  Plaintiff's  allegations that            defendants deprived her  of a jury  trial or otherwise  acted            improperly  during  the  course  of  state  court proceedings            constitute, in  substance, a  collateral attack on  the state            court  proceedings,  which  a   lower  federal  court   lacks            jurisdiction to entertain.  Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263                                        ______    __________________            U.S. 413 (1923);  Lancellotti v.  Fay, 909 F.2d  15, 17  (1st                              ___________     ___                                            ____________________            1.  We  note, however,  that  while the  face of  plaintiff's            financial affidavit suggested she  owned a $165,000 home with            significant furnishings and had no debts or dependents, other            filings indicate that  plaintiff lives in a shelter, has lost            the  home and  furnishings,  and has  very limited  financial            resources.            Cir. 1990).  Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment  claim is barred by            the statute of limitations.   Wilson v. Garcia, 471  U.S. 261                                          ______    ______            (1985);  Mass.  G.L.  ch.  260,      2A  (3-year  statute  of            limitations).  Plaintiff's challenge to the constitutionality            of state statutes omitting the names of presidential electors            from  the ballot is legally meritless.   Article two, section            one  of the  Constitution authorizes  a state  legislature to            determine how presidential  electors shall  be appointed  and            does  not require the electors' names to appear on the ballot            if  the  names  of the  candidates  for  president and  vice-            president are  on the ballot.   Hawke v. Myers, 132  Ohio St.                                            _____    _____            18, 4  N.E.2d 397  (1936).   And plaintiff's  contract action            against  her  ex-husband  must   be  dismissed  for  lack  of            diversity jurisdiction.                      The  order  denying  in  forma pauperis  status  is            summarily vacated pursuant to First Circuit Rule 27.1 and the            case  is remanded to  the district  court with  directions to            dismiss the  action as frivolous  under 28 U.S.C.    1915(d).            Appellant's  motion to  correct record  and suspend  rules is            denied.                      Vacated and remanded.                      ____________________                                         -3-
