Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10605/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10605-0/pdf.json

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

---

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 10, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10605

Summary Calendar

 

SU-INN HO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHARLES MILLER, Chairman of Board of Regents

The University of Texas System; ROBERT E. WITT,

President The University of Texas at Arlington;

PHILIP COHEN, dean of the Graduate School The

University of Texas at Arlington; RICHARD B. 

TIMMONS, Chairman of the Department of Chemistry

Department Professor of the Chemistry Department

The University of Texas at Arlington; KRISHNAN

RAJESHWAR, Professor of the Chemistry Department

The University of Texas at Arlington; REED J. BLAU,

Assistant Professor of the Chemistry Department The

University of Texas at Arlington a resident of Cache

County, Utah,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CV-85-A

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Su-Inn Ho appeals the summary judgment in favor of the

defendants on her civil rights action dismissing her civil rights

 Case: 03-10605 Document: 0051215055 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2004
No. 03-10605

-2-

** Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923);

District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462

(1983).

and tort claims regarding her dismissal from the doctoral

chemistry program at the University of Texas at Arlington and the

misdeeds of the individual defendants during a prior state

lawsuit challenging her failure to obtain her doctoral degree. 

To the extent that Ho is challenging the proceedings in the prior

state court action, those claims are “inextricably intertwined”

with the state court’s judgment, and the district court lacked

jurisdiction to consider the allegations under the RookerFeldman** doctrine. Ho’s attempts to challenge the propriety of

the ruling in her first civil action by the federal district

court is also improper. To the extent that Ho is repeating her

challenges to her dismissal from the university’s doctoral

program, her claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 

See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985); Nilsen v.

City of Moss Point, Miss., 701 F.2d 556, 560 (5th Cir.1983)(en

banc). The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-10605 Document: 0051215055 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2004