
USCA1 Opinion

	




        April 14, 1994          [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 93-1676                                  TERESA FAYE MESSER,                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,                                          v.                                  JOSEPH E. MESSER,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                [Hon. Martin F. Loughlin, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                          __________________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Joseph E. Messer on brief pro se.            ________________            J. Normand Jacques on brief for appellee.            __________________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  To the extent appellant was seeking to                      __________            remove state court actions to federal court, the petition for            removal was properly  dismissed because it was  untimely.  28            U.S.C.    1446(b)  (30  days for  removal).   To  the  extent            appellant  sought to  bring  a new  action  in federal  court            challenging the  rulings of the  state court, the  action was            properly   dismissed  because   lower  federal   courts  lack            authority  to  review state  court  judgments  even when  the            judgments are  challenged  as unconstitutional.    Rooker  v.                                                               ______            Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); Willhauck v.            __________________                               _________            Halpin, 953 F.2d 689,  704 n.14 (1st Cir. 1991);  ("the Civil            ______            Rights  Act is not a vehicle for collateral attack upon final            state court judgments"); Lancellotti v. Fay, 909 F.2d 15,  16                                     ___________    ___            (1st Cir. 1990).                      Affirmed.                      ________
