Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20932/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20932-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel D. Grigar
Appellee
John Hatton

Document Text:

1Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, this 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 10, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 03-20931

Summary Calendar

_____________________

In the Matter of: JOHN HATTON,

Debtor

JOHN HATTON,

Appellant,

versus

DANIEL D GRIGAR,

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,

District Court Cause No. H-03-CV-2111

_________________________________________________________________

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.1

PRADO, Circuit Judge.

This appeal arises from the district court’s dismissal of

Appellant’s appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s order lifting an

automatic stay. The Bankruptcy Court’s order allows Appellee to

pursue enforcement of a state court injunction. The injunction

 Case: 03-20932 Document: 005192308 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2004
2See Brinkman v. Dallas County Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d. 744,

748 (5th Cir. 1987).

3See Weekly v. Morrow, 204 F.3d. 613, 615 (5th Cir. 2000). 

In Weekly, this Court explained that:

[F]ederal district courts, as courts of original

jurisdiction, lack appellate jurisdiction to review,

modify, or nullify final orders of state courts. If a

state trial court errs the judgment is not void, it is

to be reviewed and corrected by the appropriate state

appellate court. Thereafter, recourse at the federal

level is limited solely to an application for a writ of

certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

2

enforces Appellee’s right to use a public road over Appellant’s

property.

Appellant’s arguments on appeal focus on a state-court

contempt order and a state court-of-appeals sanctions order

regarding a state-court judgment, but the only appealable issue

before this Court is whether the district court abused its

discretion in dismissing Appellant’s appeal of the Bankruptcy

Court’s order lifting the bankruptcy stay. Appellant, however,

failed to address this issue. Ordinarily when an appellant fails

to address a potential error in the district court’s analysis it

is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the judgment.2

Because Appellant failed to raise the one issue appealable to

this Court, Appellant waived that issue.

To the extent Appellant complains about the state court

actions, a federal court is precluded, under the Rooker/Feldman

doctrine, from appellate review of state-court determinations.3

 Case: 03-20932 Document: 005192308 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2004
Weekly, 204 F.3d. at 615 (quotations and citations omitted).

4“If a court of appeals determines that an appeal is

frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from

the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just

damages and single or double costs to the appellee.” FED. R. APP.

P. 38.

5Pillsbury Co. v. Midland Enter., Inc., 904 F.2d 317, 318

(5th Cir. 1990).

6Id.

3

In light of this well-settled principle, Appellee seeks sanctions

under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Rule 38 provides for sanctions if the court of appeals

determines an appeal is frivolous, so long as the party to be

sanctioned receives notice and a reasonable opportunity to

respond.4 This appeal is frivolous because Appellant waived the

only appealable issue and because a federal court has no

jurisdiction to consider what Appellant seeks to challenge. 

Appellant received notice by virtue of Appellee’s motion, but

failed to respond despite adequate time. Appellant has

“unjustifiably consumed the limited resources of the judicial

system and this Court,”5 and “needlessly put [Appellee] to the

expense of defending [his] judgment.”6 For these reasons, this

Court GRANTS Appellee’s motion for sanctions and AWARDS double

costs to Appellee.

The record indicates the district court properly dismissed

Appellant’s appeal under Bankruptcy Rule 8006 because Appellant

 Case: 03-20932 Document: 005192308 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/10/2004
4

failed to comply with the rule. Consequently, this Court AFFIRMS

the district court’s dismissal order. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-20932 Document: 005192308 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/10/2004