Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-09-02316/USCOURTS-ca10-09-02316-0/pdf.json

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

---

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is

not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 20, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN L. HAWKS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JIM MATTOX; DAN MORALES;

JOHN CORNYN; GREG ABBOTT, in

their personal supervisory capacities

as Attorney Generals of the State of

Texas; JANE DOES 1-50, employees

of the Texas Attorney General Child

Support Division, in their personal and

supervisory capacities,

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 09-2316

(D.C. No. 2:09-CV-00436-BB-KBM)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HOLMES, Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge, and EBEL,

Circuit Judge.

Appellate Case: 09-2316 Document: 01018459858 Date Filed: 07/20/2010 Page: 1
1 See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v.

Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923).

-2-

Stephen L. Hawks, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal

of his civil rights suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine.1

 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

Exercising de novo review, see Kiowa Indian Tribe of Okla. v. Hoover, 150 F.3d

1163, 1165 (10th Cir. 1998), we affirm. 

Mr. Hawks’ dispute with the defendants, primarily the current and former

Texas Attorneys General, arises out of two Texas child-support orders. In 1988,

the state court issued a decree of divorce including certain child-support

provisions. In 1999, the state court issued a modified child-support order

amending the support provisions. Mr. Hawks contends that the Attorney

General’s office did not properly apply and enforce these orders, so that he was

incorrectly assessed with child-support arrearages. 

Relying on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this court affirmed the district

court’s dismissal of a separate lawsuit against current Texas Attorney General

Greg Abbott. Hawks v. Abbott, 365 F. App’x 124 (10th Cir. 2010) (Hawks I). 

Mr. Hawks concedes on appeal that the claims in Hawks I and in this case are

“almost identical in Subject Matter.” Aplt. Br. at 1. Because Mr. Hawks seeks to

assert in this suit the same type of claims that Hawks I held to be precluded by the

Appellate Case: 09-2316 Document: 01018459858 Date Filed: 07/20/2010 Page: 2
-3-

Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Appellant’s motion to file the appendix from Hawks I in this appeal is

GRANTED. All other pending motions are DENIED. 

Entered for the Court

Jerome A. Holmes

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 09-2316 Document: 01018459858 Date Filed: 07/20/2010 Page: 3