* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances

1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 4, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-30189

Summary Calendar

HORACE P. ROWLEY, III; WENDY K. ROWLEY,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

MERCEDES ARZU WILSON; H. HUGH WILSON; RODNEY JACK

STRAIN, JR., Sheriff & Ex-Officio Tax Collector of St. Tammany Parish;

CATHERINE C. SPADARO; JAMES J. SPADARO,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Louisiana

(USDC No. 2:03-CV-3307)

_________________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

We reverse the district court’s dismissal of the appellants’ lawsuit for the

following reasons:

1. The district court correctly held that it was proper for it to abstain 

from hearing appellants’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief under 

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). The

state proceedings were ongoing, the proceedings implicate important state

interests relating to state taxes and liens, and there was an adequate

opportunity in the state proceedings for appellants to raise their constitutional

challenges. See Allen v. La. State. Bd. of Dentistry, 835 F.2d 100, 103 (5th

Cir. 1988).

2. The district court also correctly held that Younger abstention does not 

apply to claims for monetary damages. Id. at 104. However, the district

court erred in applying the abstention doctrine provided in Colorado River

Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S. Ct. 1236,

47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976) to appellants’ claims for monetary damages. For the

Colorado River abstention doctrine to apply, the state and federal lawsuit

must be parallel. Diamond Offshore Co. v. A&B Builders, Inc., 302 F.3d
3

531, 540 (5th Cir. 2002). This means the suits must have the same parties

and the same issues. Id. That is not the case here. While some of the parties

and issues are the same, some are not. The federal lawsuit has additional

defendants, specifically Sheriff Strain and the Spadaros, with additional

claims against these defendants. 

3. Appellees argue that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies here. 

However, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine now applies only in the “limited

circumstances” where “the losing party in state court filed suit in federal court

after the state proceedings ended, complaining of an injury caused by the

state-court judgment and seeking review and rejection of that judgment.” 

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291, 125 S.

Ct. 1517, 1526, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005). Exxon Mobil tells us when a state

court judgment is sufficiently final for operation of the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine: when “the state proceedings [have] ended.” Id. At the time

appellants filed this federal lawsuit, their state proceedings had not ended. 

The state case was on appeal to the Louisiana appellate court. Accordingly,

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is inapplicable. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED.