Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-11088/USCOURTS-ca5-03-11088-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terry James
Appellant
Nicki Mathison
Appellee
Joseph B. Morris
Appellee
Bill Rhea
Appellee
Supreme Court of Texas
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-11088

Conference Calendar

 

TERRY JAMES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BILL RHEA; JOSEPH B. MORRIS; SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS; NICKI

MATHISON,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:02-CV-2627-N

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Terry James appeals from the district court’s dismissal of

his civil-rights lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 

He has also filed a motion seeking appointment of counsel on

appeal. Because he has failed to show “exceptional

circumstances” warranting the appointment of counsel on appeal,

that motion is DENIED. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209,

213 (5th Cir. 1982).

 Case: 03-11088 Document: 0051343396 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2004
No. 03-11088

-2-

We review a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction de novo. See Williams v. Dallas Area Rapid

Transit, 242 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir. 2001). Because James’s

complaint is inextricably intertwined with certain state court

judgments, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review his

complaint. See United States v. Shepherd, 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th

Cir. 1994); see also District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust

Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923). Accordingly, the district court’s

judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-11088 Document: 0051343396 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2004