U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 2013

Mills v. Calero

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Decided October 23, 2013 · Howard, Lynch, Stahl

733 F.3d 28; 2013 WL 5737340; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 21526 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

Joseph M. Baldacci on brief for appellant., Thomas A. Knowlton on brief for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Manolian v. Lytle (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 2022)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs on appeal and considered the appellant’s arguments. The district court was plainly correct to dismiss the complaint. Mills’s arguments are based on a misapprehension of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, see D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983), and of issue preclusion, and are without merit. For the reasons set forth in the district court’s order, Mills v. Calero, No. 1:11-cv-00470 (D.Me. Mar. 7, 2013), we summarily affirm. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.