IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-41199

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,

Defendants–Appellees.

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: 11/17/2014
No. 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 individuals and entities for events related to the

search of their property and their subsequent arrest and prosecution for animal cruelty. The district court dismissed all the claims, and we affirm.

I.

Hoffman and Lulling operated a derelict-animal “sanctuary” on their 

ten-acre property in Marion County, Texas, where they held over one hundred

exotic animals, including six tigers, several leopards, and a puma. Game Warden Rick Lane and Deputy Sheriff David McKnight visited the property to 

investigate complaints that dangerous animals were being kept. They entered

the property and approached a trailer, where they were met outside by Hoffman and Lulling.1 Hoffman admitted to keeping big cats on the property. She 

showed Lane and McKnight the animals, which had visible injuries and were 

housed in small cages without 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 the next morning with other 

defendants—District Attorney William Gleason, Investigators Shawn Cox and 

* 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.

1 Lulling is hearing-impaired, which was immediately apparent to 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 seemingly understood what was being said.

2

 

 Case: 13-41199 Document: 00512839430 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
No. 13-41199

Larry Nance, Inspector Eddie Hayes, Caroline Wedding from the Marion 

County Humane 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 said 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 animals. Afterward, they sued many of those involved in the events under a cornucopia 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, they

maintain that Marion County and the individual defendants violated their 

Fourth Amendment rights by illegally searching their property and seizing the 

animals. The court granted summary judgment because all evidence 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 property to visit and 

converse with the owner just as a private citizen might. Florida v. Jardines, 

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 defendants 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 and 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: 11/17/2014
No. 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. Government officials may enter the open fields without a warrant, 

as the defendants did here, because “an open field is neither a house nor an 

effect, and, therefore, the government's intrusion upon the open fields is not 

one of those unreasonable searches proscribed by the text of the Fourth 

Amendment.” Id. at 303–04 (internal quotation marks omitted).2 That rule 

squarely applies here, and the summary judgment for that reason was appropriate. We similarly 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 Disabilities Act (“ADA”). He contends that Marion County and certain individual 

defendants discriminated against him based on his disability in violation of 42 

U.S.C. § 12132 by failing to provide him with an interpreter after the officials 

visited the property and later arrested him. His complaint, however, fails 

sufficiently to state 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 

participation in, or was denied benefits of, services, programs, or activities for 

which [the public entity] is responsible; and (3) that such exclusion or discrimination is because of [his] disability.” Estate of Lance v. Lewisville 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: 11/17/2014
No. 13-41199

Although no one disputes that Lulling is hearing-impaired, he fails to allege 

how he was excluded as a result of not having an interpreter during the investigation or arrest. The evidence indicates that he could effectively communicate with officers and that several times he initiated conversations with 

the defendants. Without any allegation that Lulling’s hearing impairment 

resulted in an exclusion from government 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 under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, we lack jurisdiction to 

review that decision. This 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 rendered 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 

Hoffman and Lulling urge, so their claim is not properly before us. 

D.

The district 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. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

3 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005); see 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