Case ID: f-appx_78/html/0421-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Apparajan GANESAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sudha VALLABHANENT; Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-50193.
    Conference Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 22, 2003.
    Apparajan Ganesan, Venus, TX, pro se.
    Scott Olson, Clark, Thomas & Winters, Charles F. Herring, Jr., Herring & Irwin, Austin, TX, John Francis Paniszczyn, US Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Apparajan Ganesan, Texas inmate # 904088, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil complaint. Ganesan’s motion for hearing en banc is DENIED.

“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine holds that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to entertain collateral attacks on state judgments.” United States v. Shepherd, 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th Cir.1994). If the district court must examine issues that are “‘inextricably intertwined’ with a state judgment, the [district] court is ‘in essence being called upon to review the state-court decision, and the originality of the district court’s jurisdiction precludes such a review.’ ” Id. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Ganesan may not attempt to invalidate in federal court the state court judgment obtained in the common law marriage proceeding. See id.

Ganesan’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal of Ganesan’s appeal counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Ganesan is warned that should he accumulate three strikes, for purposes of 28 U.S.C.1915(g), he will be unable to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; MOTION FOR EN BANC HEARING DENIED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      
        Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923).