they appear of record. Since the plaintiff has incorporated in his complaint the proceedings had in the Common Pleas Court, they are here considered factually.
Plaintiff attempts to meet jurisdictional requirements as to diversity of citizenship by invoking the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 et seq. Judge Maris of the Third Circuit Court discusses this question in Williams v. Yellow Cab Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 200 F.2d 302 at page 307 (3rd Cir.) (1952):
'It has long been settled that the Fourteenth Amendment is directed only to state action and that the invasion by individuals of the rights of other individuals is not within its purview. It necessarily follows that the jurisdiction conferred upon the federal district courts by Section 1343 is similarly limited and that redress for the invasion by an individual of the civil rights of another must be sought in the state courts, unless, of course, diversity of citizenship is present.'
Plaintiff does not argue or contend that any of the named parties in the above suit are anything but residents and domiciliaries of Pennsylvania. In seeking an avenue of entrance into a United States court, he asserts that the State court officials -- judges, lawyers, sheriffs, tipstaffs, etc., both at the trial of the first case and on his motion before the court en banc in the second case conspired to deny him justice. While making these assertions, he does not aver a single fact upon which he can achieve his aim. His averments are based upon his own conclusions and to bolster these, he asks this Court to review the entire trial record and pass judgment on the decision rendered by the State court. There is no need to cite the numerous cases that hold that a United States district court will not act as a court of review simply because a party feels that the State courts have denied him his own predetermined remedy.
In all other respects, since Judge Aldisert succinctly explains and summarizes the law and rationale as to the rights, privileges and safeguards which were applicable in the actions of that court, it is obvious that the plaintiff has neither a bare cause of action nor any rights by which his complaint in this Court can be sustained. The motion of the defendants to dismiss will be granted.