Case ID: f-appx_71/html/0380-02.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

Francis SHARPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF DALLAS; Charles V. Grahmann, Reverend, His Predecessors and Successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas; Windle Turley; Randal Mathis; Monte Fite, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 02-11204.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 18, 2003.
    
      Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Francis Sharpe appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Sharpe argues that his federal action does not amount to an attack on the prior state court judgment because his federal claims are not inextricably intertwined with the merits of the state court suit.

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, “[w]hen issues raised in a federal court are inextricably intertwined with a state judgment and the court is in essence being called upon to review the state-court decision, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to conduct such a review.” Although Sharpe argues that his federal suit differs from his state case because his federal complaint claims that the defendants violated his civil rights, “litigants may not obtain review of state court actions by filing complaints about those actions in lower federal courts cast in the form of civil rights suits.”

Sharpe’s pleadings belie his argument that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is inapplicable: His complaint specifically requests a declaratory judgment that certain discarded church documents belong to him and should be returned to him. The state court had previously granted summary judgment to the defendants on Sharpe’s claims requesting return of the documents. Sharpe’s federal action is clearly inextricably intertwined with the judgment in his prior state court case. Therefore, the district court’s judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED.

The motions to dismiss filed by defendants Turley and Fite are DENIED AS MOOT. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      . See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923).
     
      
      . See Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir. 1995) ("When issues raised in a federal court are inextricably intertwined with a state judgment and the court is in essence being called upon to review the state-court decision, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to conduct such a review.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
     
      
      . Hale v. Harney, 786 F.2d 688, 691 (5th Cir.1986).