USCA1 Opinion

          October 24, 1994      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


                                 ____________________


        No. 94-1196 

                               JOSEPH M. CRAVEIRO, II,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                             LORING P. LAMOUREUX, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Joseph M. Craveiro, Jr. on brief pro se.
            _______________________
            Scott  Harshbarger,  Attorney General,  and  Eleanor Coe  Sinnott,
            __________________                           ____________________
        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________


























                      Per Curiam.  Appellant Joseph Craveiro appeals from
                      __________

            the  district court's order  dismissing his 42  U.S.C.   1983

            complaint as frivolous  under 28  U.S.C.   1915(d).   Upon  a

            careful review  of the  record  and the  parties' briefs,  we

            agree with the judgment of the district court for essentially

            the  reasons stated in its Memorandum  and Order dated August

            3, 1993.  We add the following comments.

                      First,  appellant's request for  an order directing

            defendants to  correct the state judgment is barred by Rooker
                                                                   ______

            v.  Fidelity  Trust  Co., 263  U.S.  413,  416 (1923)  (lower
                ____________________

            federal court has no  jurisdiction to sit in review  of state

            court  judgment).   Second, a  federal court  cannot instruct

            state  officials   how  to  behave  based   upon  state  law.
                                                              _____

            Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106
            ______________________________    _________

            (1984).    These  cases  dispose of  appellant's  claims  for

            declaratory and  injunctive relief.   Finally, a  judgment in

            favor  of appellant in this case plainly would imply that his

            conviction for armed robbery is invalid.  Thus, his claim for

            damages  is not  cognizable  under     1983.    See  Heck  v.
                                                            ___  ____

            Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994).
            ________

                      Appellant's    complaint,    being   premised    on

            "indisputably  meritless  legal  theor[ies],"   is  therefore

            frivolous within the meaning of Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
                                            _______    ________

            319,  327  (1989).   The judgment  of  the district  court is

            affirmed.
            ________