### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 4 1199

BARBARA E. HOFFMANN; FRED LULLING,

Plaintiffs

– Appellants ,

versus
MARION COUNTY , TEXAS; HUMANE SOCIETY OF MARION COUNTY; JEFFERSON ANIMAL CLINIC; JUDGE PHIL PARKER; MAGISTRATE LEX JONES; MAGISTRATE VELMA ALLEN; DISTRICT ATTORNEY WILLIAM GLEASON; INVESTIGATOR LARRY NANCE; SHERIFF WILLIAM MCCAY; INVESTIGATOR SHAWN COX; DEPUTY DAVID MCKNIGHT; GAME WARDEN RICK LANE; EDDIE HAYES, Animal Health Commission; CAROLINE WEDDING, Humane Society of Marion County; CAROL HEDGES, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine,

Defendant s

– Appellee s

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 2:12

- CV

- 14 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 17, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-41199 Document: 00512839430 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2014No. 13

- 41199 Before REAVLEY , SMITH , and SOUTHWICK , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *

Barbara Hoffman and Fred Lulling appeal a summary judgment

. They initially sued over a dozen indi viduals and entities for events related to the search of their property and their subsequent arrest and prosecution for ani

mal cruelty . The district court dismissed all the claims , and we affirm.

I.
H offman and Lulling operated a derelict

- animal “ sanctuary ” on their
ten

- acre p roperty in Marion County, Texas, where they held over one hundred exotic ani mals, including six tigers, several leopards, and a puma

. Game War

den Rick Lane and Deputy Sheriff David McKnight visited the prop erty to investigate complaints that dangerous an i mals were being kept. The y entered the property and approached a trailer , where they were met out side by Hoff

man and Lulling. 1 Hoffman admitted to keeping big cats on the property

. She showed Lane and McKnight the animals , which had visible injur ies and were housed in small cages w ithout adequate food or water. They asked Hoffman whether she had the proper licenses and health certificates for the animals, but she could not produce any. McKnight visited the property again th e next morning with other defend ants

— District Attorney W illiam Gleason, Investigators Shawn Cox and

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

1 Lulling is hearing

- impaired, which was immediately apparent t o McKnight and Lane. The defendants primarily spoke with Hoffman, who in turn would communicate with Lulling, though Lulling frequently initiated communication with the defendants and seem

ingly understood what was being said. 2 Case: 13-41199 Document: 00512839430 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2014No. 13

- 41199 Larry Nance, Inspector Eddie Hayes, Caroline Wedding from the Marion County Human e Society, and veterinarian Dr. Carol Hedges

— and met outside with Hoffman and Lulling. They again observed many obvious violations in how the animals were being held, and Hoffman s aid she intended to release the big cats into a substandard pen. Officers ordered Hoffman and Lulling not to release the cats, then obtained a warrant to search the property and seize the animals. Hoffman and Lulling were arrested and charged with animal cruelty and forfeited the ani

mals

. Afterward, they sued many of those involved in th e events under a cor

nu copia of legal theories, all of which the district court eventually rejected

.

II. A.
In Hoffman and Lulling’s principal claim , under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , t hey maintain that Marion County and the individual defendants vio lated their Fourth Amendment rights by illegally searching their property a nd seizing the animals. The court granted summa ry judgment beca use all evi den ce indicated that the officials’ visits were proper and they never entered the curtilage of Hoffman and Lulling’ s trailer without a warrant

. Officials generally have an implied license to enter prop erty to visit and converse with the owner just as a private citizen might

. Florida v. Ja r dines , 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1415

– 17 (2013)

. McKnight and Lane initially stopped at the property to investigate complaints about big cats ’ being illegally held. When they arrived, the def endants stayed in the open area of the property, where they were shown the cats by Hoffman and Lulling without any protest. Once
it became apparent the next day that Hoffman and Lulling were violating the law by failing to retain the required paperwork an d keeping the animals in inhumane conditions, the officials obtained a proper warrant to search the

3 Case: 13-41199 Document: 00512839430 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/17/2014No. 13

- 41199 trailer and seize the animals. The district court relied on United States v. Dunn , 480 U.S. 294 (1987), in which the Court distinguished between the curtilage and the open fields of a property. G overnment officials may enter the open fields with out a warrant, as the defendants did here , because “an open field is neither a house nor a n effect, and, therefore, the gov ernment's intru sion upon the open fields is not one of th ose unreasonable searches pro scribed by the text of the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 303

– 04 (internal quo tation marks omitted). 2 That rule squarely applies here, a nd the summary judgment for that reason was appro
pri ate. We simi larly find no issue with the warrant. As a result , we do not need to consider other issues related to the § 1983 claim , such as qualified immunity.

B. Lulling appeals the dismissal of his claim under the Americans with Dis

a bilities Act (“ADA”) . He contends that Marion County and certain indi vidual defendants discriminated against him based on his disability in viola tion of 42 U.S.C. § 12132 by failing to provide him with an interpr eter after the officials visited the property and later arrested him. His complain t , however, fails sufficient ly to s tate a claim. Under § 12132, Lulling must demonstrate “ (1) that [he] is a qualified individual within the meaning of the ADA; (2) that [he] was excluded from

par ticipation in, or was denied benefits of, services, programs, or activities for which [the public entity ] is responsible; and (3) that such exclusion or discrim

ination is because of [his] disability. ” Estate of Lance v. Lewisvi lle Indep. Sch.
Dist. , 743 F.3d 982, 990 n.3 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted)

.

2 See also United States v. Cooke , 674 F.3d 491, 493

– 95 (5th Cir. 2012). 4 Case: 13-41199 Document: 00512839430 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/17/2014No. 13

- 41199 Although n o one disputes that Lulling is hearing

- impaired , he fails to allege
h ow he was excluded as a result of not having an interpreter during the inves

ti gation or arrest. The evidence indicates that he could effectively com

municate with officers and that several times he initiated conversations with the defendants. Without an y allegation that Lulling’s hearing impairment
resulted in a n exclusion from g overnment benefits or effective services, the
ADA claim is deficient, and dismissal was proper.

C. Hoffman and Lulling ask us to vacate a judgment from the Marion county court, but u nder the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine, we lack jurisdiction to review that decision. T his case presents exactly the sort of situation for which the doctrine precludes review: “ cases brought by state

- court losers complaining of injuries caused by state

- court judgments rendere d before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments. ” 3 We decline to adopt a new exception to the doctrine as Hoff man and Lulling urge, so their claim is not properly before us.

D. The d istrict court dismissed Hoffman and Lulling’s other claims

. That is not error because each claim either was not properly appealed or did not
state a proper cause of action. T he summary judg ment is AFFIRMED.

3 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp. , 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005); s ee also United States v. Shepherd , 23 F.3d 923, 924

– 25 (5th Cir. 1994). 5 Case: 13-41199 Document: 00512839430 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/17/2014