Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41060/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41060-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41060

Summary Calendar

MICHAEL HABINIAK, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

MARIO E. RAMIREZ, JR., Judge; C. WESLEY KITTLEMAN, Attorney; 

CARLOS YZAGUIRRE, Attorney; DAVID J. LUMBER, Attorney; JAMES P. 

GRISSOM, Attorney; WILLIAM A. CSABI, Attorney; THE KITTLEMAN, 

THOMAS ; GONZALEZ LAW FIRM; THE GUERRA LAW GROUP, P.L.L.C.; 

TEXAS NATIONAL BANK; ARSENIO AFARO; HEIRBERTO ALANIZ; 

HECTOR GUERRA, SR.; HECTOR GUERRA, JR.; CANDELARIO 

ONTIVEROS; JOE QUIROGA; ABEL RODRIGUEZ; THE FEDERAL 

DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION; THE OFFICE OF THE 

COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY; TEXAS NATIONAL BANK BOARD 

OF DIRECTORS, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CV-69

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-41060 Document: 00513045197 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2015
No. 14-41060

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.6.1

* 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.

1 Although we affirm the district court’s judgment without a full opinion, we do add 

the following brief comment. The appellant misconstrues the district court to have (1) held

that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precluded it from adjudicating all of his claims and (2) 

nevertheless considered the merits of those claims. On the contrary, the district court did no 

such thing. It held that Rooker-Feldman precluded it from considering some claims but not

others, and it considered the merits of only those latter claims not barred by Rooker-Feldman. 

Therefore, the sole argument presented in this appeal is without merit.

2

 

Case: 14-41060 Document: 00513045197 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2015