USCA1 Opinion

        June 8, 1992            [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]






                                 ____________________


        No. 92-1492

                             ALFREDO HUALDE-REDIN, MARIA
                              SUSANA COSTA AND THE LEGAL
                                 CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
                          CONSTITUTED BETWEEN BOTH PARTIES,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                          ISMAEL BETANCOURT, SUPERINTENDENT
                                  OF POLICE, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


                  [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
                                                ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________

                                 ____________________

            Alfredo Hualde-Redin on brief pro se.
            ____________________
            Maria Susana Costa on brief pro se.
            __________________



                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________



















                      Per Curiam.  We read  plaintiffs' rather conclusory
                      __________

            and rambling allegations, along  with the documents they have

            submitted, to claim  the following.  Plaintiffs  Mr. and Mrs.

            Hualde, citizens of Argentina,  owned a boat.  This  boat was

            "stolen"  from them.   Defendant  Varaderos de  Fajardo, Inc.

            filed an action in  Puerto Rico court against Mr.  Hualde for

            collection  of  money  claimed  owed.   Plaintiffs  told  the

            superior  court  judge that  defendant Varaderos  de Fajardo,

            Inc. was not  entitled to  the boat, but  a default  judgment

            entered  against  Mr. Hualde,  and the  boat was  attached in

            execution of the judgment.  Mrs.  Hualde, a part owner of the

            boat,  was  not  a  party   to  the  superior  court  action.

            Plaintiffs  sought  to have  criminal  proceedings instituted

            based  on the  "theft" of  their sailboat,  but to  no avail.

            Plaintiffs then instituted  the present  civil rights  action

            against the superintendent of police, various police officers

            who  had refused  to  assist with  plaintiffs' complaints  of

            theft, Varaderos  de Fajardo, Inc., the  superior court judge

            who entered the default  judgment, and various other persons.

            They   claimed   that   the  courts,   police,   and   others

            discriminated against  them and denied them  equal protection

            because of their nationality and that they had been  deprived

            of their  property (boat) without  due process.   They sought

            damages, return of their boat, and declaratory and injunctive

            relief staying the confiscation of their boat.



                                         -2-















                      We agree with  the district court that  plaintiffs'

            action  is in effect a  collateral attack on  the state court

            judgment which  authorized an execution  on plaintiffs' boat.

            Lower    federal   courts   lack   jurisdiction   to   review

            constitutional   or  other  challenges   to  such  judgments.

            District of  Columbia Court of  Appeals v. Feldman,  460 U.S.
            _______________________________________    _______

            462, 485-86 (1983);  Rooker v. Fidelity  Trust Co., 263  U.S.
                                 ______    ___________________

            413 (1923); Lancellotti  v. Fay,  909 F.2d 15,  17 (1st  Cir.
                        ___________     ___

            1990).

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

































                                         -3-