USCA1 Opinion

        October 15, 1992        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT




                                 ____________________


        No. 92-1329 

                                  ROBERT F. BICKEL,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               EDWARD GINSBURG, ET AL.,
                                Defendants, Appellees.
                                 ____________________

        No. 92-1599 

                                  ROBERT F. BICKEL,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                 EDWARD GINSBURG AND
                                   CHRISTINE HARMS,
                                Defendants, Appellees.
                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________
                                 ____________________

            Robert F. Bickel on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Scott   Harshbarger,  Attorney   General,  and   Steve   Berenson,
            ___________________                              ________________
        Assistant  Attorney General,  on Memorandum  in Support  of Appellees'
        Motion to Dismiss Appeal or for Summary Affirmance.

                                 ____________________














                                 ____________________
                      Per Curiam.  Appellant brought this action under 42
                      __________

            U.S.C.     1983 essentially  alleging  that  two state  court

            probate judges violated his Fourteenth  Amendment due process

            rights by  refusing to  appoint counsel  to represent  him in

            divorce  proceedings.     The  district   court  granted  the

            defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

                      Appellant's argument is basically  as follows.   In

            Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971), the Supreme Court
            ______    ___________

            held that due process prohibits  a state from imposing  court

            costs that  deny indigent  persons access  to  its courts  in

            order to secure judicial dissolution of their marriages.  Id.
                                                                      ___

            at  374.   In  so holding,  the  court stated  that "marriage

            involves interests of basic importance  in our society."  Id.
                                                                      ___

            at 376.    Because  divorce  proceedings  are  like  criminal

            actions, where defendants have the right to counsel to defend

            their liberty,  this thesis runs,  and because marriage  is a

            fundamental  "liberty  interest," due  process  also requires

            states  to  provide the  assistance  of  counsel to  indigent

            individuals in divorce proceedings.

                      Appellant's  complaint  fails   for  two   reasons.

            First, to the extent that he is seeking an order holding that

            the  state  court  decision  concerning  the  appointment  of

            counsel  was  wrong, he  is not  entitled  to relief  in this

            court.  Lower federal courts  have no power to sit in  review

            of state court orders.  District of Columbia Court of Appeals
                                    _____________________________________

            v. Feldman,  460 U.S.  462 (1983);  Rooker v. Fidelity  Trust
               _______                          ______    _______________

            Co.,  263 U.S. 413 (1983).   See also Lancellotti v. Fay, 909
            ___                          ___ ____ ___________    ___

            F.2d  15, 17 (1st Cir. 1990) (federal court may not entertain

            action seeking to  enjoin state court  from enforcing  orders
















            entered in state  divorce proceedings).   Appellant's  remedy

            was  to pursue his  claim of constitutional  error within the

            appellate courts of Massachusetts  and, if not successful, to

            seek  further review  from the  United States  Supreme Court.

            See Decker v. Hillsborough County Attorney's Office, 845 F.2d
            ___ ______    _____________________________________

            17, 20-21 (1st Cir. 1988) (per curiam).

                      Even  assuming  federal   review  of  the   merits,

            however,  the complaint would fail  to state a  claim under  

            1983.   Generally,  there is  no constitutional right  to the

            appointment of counsel in civil cases.  See, e.g., Cookish v.
                                                    ___  ____  _______

            Cunningham, 787  F.2d  1, 2  (1st  Cir. 1986)  (per  curiam);
            __________

            Caruth v. Pinkney, 683  F.2d 1044, 1048 (7th Cir.  1982) (per
            ______    _______

            curiam), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1214 (1983); Watson v.  Moss,
                     ____________                        ______     ____

            619  F.2d  775, 774  (8th Cir.  1980)  (per curiam).   Accord
                                                                   ______

            Lassiter  v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981)
            ________     ________________________

            ("such  a right has been  recognized to exist  only where the

            litigant  may  lose  his  physical liberty  if  he  loses the

            litigation").1  Despite appellant's  attempt to posit a right

            to counsel in  divorce proceedings, he  cites no cases  which

            have so held.


                                
            ____________________

            1.  Lassiter  is an exception  to this general  rule.  There,
                ________
            the  Supreme Court  held that due  process might  require the
            appointment of counsel for  indigent parents in some parental
            termination proceedings.  It relied on the important interest
            of the parent in the accuracy and justice of a decision which
            worked a "unique kind of deprivation."  Id. at 27.   Lassiter
                                                    ___          ________
            is limited to  such terminations and espouses a  narrow case-
            by-case approach.

                                         -3-















                      Appellant's  remaining  arguments  were not  raised

            before the  district court.  As such, we do not consider them

            on appeal.  See Decker, 845 F.2d at 19 (court of appeals does
                        ___ ______

            not  address  new  matters  not included  in  district  court

            pleadings but  instead asserted  for first time  in appellate

            briefs).

                      For the  foregoing reasons, we affirm  the judgment
                                                     ______

            of the district court.





































                                         -4-