Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circumstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30779 JA M E S L . FA H R E N H O L T Z , also k n ow n as J i m m y F a h ren h olt z P l a i n tiff

- A p p ell a n t v. JAY D AR D EN N E, I n hi s o f f i c i alc ap ac i t y as Lo ui s i anaSe c r e t ary o f St at e a nd C om m i ssi on er of

E l ect i on s D efen da n t- A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 08- C V
- 4098 B ef ore B A R K S D A L E , D eM O S S an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * Ina p p e a li n gth e d ism iss a l of h is a p p li ca tion forinju n ctiv e a n dd e cla ra to ry r e l i e f i n a n el e c t i o n- qua l i f i c at i o n di s put e , J am e s Fahr e nho l t z c o nt e s t s t he di st ri ctcourt ’ s res -

ju d ica ta de t e r m i nat i o n. That i s s ue ne e d no tbe de c i de d, becau se th i s act i on i s barred by the R o o ke r - Fe l dm an d o c t r i n e . A F F I RMED. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D Jul y 27, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30779

2 I. In Ju l y 200 8, F ah renh ol t z f i l ed to be a can di da t e i n t h at year’ s el ect i on f or th e U n ite d S ta te s H o u s e o f R e p r e s e n ta tiv e s . H is ca n d id a c yw a s ch a lle n g e din st ate di st ri ctcourt . Th at act i on contended F ah renh ol t z w as i n el i gibl e becau se h e ha d fal sely certi f i ed h i s eli gibi l i t y u n der t h e L ou i si an a C am pa i gn F i n an ce D is c lo s u r e A c t, L A . R EV . S TAT . A NN . § 1 8 :1 4 8 1 (2 0 0 4 ), e t s e q . A l so nam ed as a d e fe n d a n t w a s J a y D a r d e n n e , L o u is ia n a ’ s S e c r e ta r y o f S ta te a n d th e a p p e lle e in th e a c tio n a t h a n d . L o u is ia n ae le c tio n la w re q u ir e s a ca n d id a te to ce r tify , in tera lia , t hat“he doe s notow e a ny out st andi ng f i nes , fee s, or penal t i es pu r suantt o the C am pai gn F in a n c e D i s c l o s u r e A c t” . L A . R EV . S TAT . A NN . § 1 8 :46 3 (A)(2)(a )(v) (2 0 0 4 ). Alth o u g h F a h r e n h o l t z s i g n e dac e r t if i c a t i o n t o t h i s e f

fe c t, h eo w e da p p r o x im a te ly $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 infi n es a n dfee s. A s are su l t, th e state d i stri ct cou rt he l dF a h ren h olt z w a s d is q u a lifie dfr o m ru n n in ginth e 2 0 0 8 e le c tio n . T h e L o u is ia n aC o u r t o f A p p e a l a ffir m e d . Will ia m s v. F a h re n h o ltz , 990 So. 2d 99 (L a. C t . A pp . 200 8) . T h at court decl i n ed t o consi d e r F ah renh ol t z’ constit u t i on alchal l en ge t o the st ate dis t ri ctcourt ’ s i n t erpret ati on of t h e st atute, r u lin git h a dn o t b e e n p r o p e r l yra is e du n d e rL o u is ia n ap r o c e d u r a l la w . I d. at 1 0 2 n .1 . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f L o u is ia n ad e n ie dF a h r e n h olt z’ap p lica tionf or aw rit o f c e r tio r a r i. Will ia m s v . F a h re n h o ltz , 986 So. 2d 67 1 (L a. 200 8) . A s a r esul tof t he s e pr o c e e di ngs , Se c r e t ary D ar de nne r e m o ve d Fa hr e nho l t z ’na m e f r o m t he b a llo t. In A u gu st200 8, i n federaldi st ri ctcourt , F ah renh ol t z f i l ed an A pp l i cat i on f o rT e mp o r a r yR e s t r a i n i n gO r d e r , P r e l i mi n a r ya n dP e r ma n e n tI nj u n c t i o n . H e contend ed the sta te -co u rtdeci si on s, an d the sub sequ en trem oval of hi s nam e, vi o l at e d the S u prem ac y Cl aus e o f t he U ni t e d St at e s Cons t i t ut i o n b y ad di ng a d d ition a leli gibili ty req u i rem en ts f or fed era l -of

fice ca n d i d a tes. F a h ren h olt zN o. 08- 30779

3 r eques t ed thatSec r et ar y D ar denne be bar r ed f r om r em ovi ng Fah r enhol t z’nam e f r o m t he b all o t . Fa hr e nho l t z a l s o s o ugh tade c l ar at i o n t hat the r e l e va nt cert i f i cat i on requ i rem en t s do not ap pl y t o can di da t es f or t h e U n ited S t ates H o u s e o f R e p r e s e n ta tiv e s . In o p p o s itio n , S e c r e ta ryD a rd en n e a sse r te d , in tera lia , t hatt he i s s ue o f t he c ons ti tu ti onal i t y o f

t he r equir em ent s w as bar r ed by re s ju d ica ta . Th e di st ri ct c o u r t a g r e e da n dd is m is s e dw ith p r eju d ic e . II. F ah renh ol t z chal l en ges t h e re s - j udi c at a determ i n ati on . Secret ary D ar denne c ount er s bo ththa t th e d i stri ct cou rt correctly con cl u d edthe acti on w as b a rred by re s ju d ica ta ; an d, al t erna t ivel y, t h at iti s barred by the R o o ke r Fe l dm an doct ri n e. Th e res - ju d ica tai s s ue ne e d no tb e de c i de d, b e c aus e t he R o o ke r - Fe l dm an d o c tr in e b a r s th is a c tio n . A. A res - ju d ica tarul i n g i s r evi ew edde novo . E . g. , T e s t Ma s te rsE d u c . Se r v s ., I nc. v. Si ngh , 428 F. 3d 559, 5 7 1 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) . “ I n dec i di ng t he pr ec l usive effect of a state co u rt j u d gm en t in fede ra lco u rt, w e a re g u i d edbythe f u l lfa i th a n dcred i t st a tu te, [28 U . S . C . § 17 3 8 ] . . . . A ccord i n gly, w e m u st l oo kto t h e sta te th a t r e n d e r e dth e ju d g m e n t t o d e te r m in e w h e th e rt h e c o u r ts o f th a t s ta te w o u ld a ff ordthe j u d gm en t p reclu sive ef fect. ” In reG ober , 100 F . 3d119 5, 120 1 ( 5th C i r. 199 6) . B ecau se a Lou i si an a st ate court rend ered t h e j u dg m en t , w h i ch S ecret ary D ar denne urge s as be i ng re s ju d ica ta , L o u is ia n as u b s ta n tiv e la w co n tr o ls th is a n a ly s is . L ou i si an a l aw bars r e lit i gati on both of i ssues rai sed i n a pri or act i on or th o s e th a t co u ld h a v e b e e n r a is e d . Mand alay O i l& G as, L. L. C . v. E nergy D e v. Cor p. , 867 So. 2d 70 9, 713 (L a. C t. A p p . 200 2) . “T o m ai n t ai n a pl ea of res j udi c at a, t he f

or m ul a derived i n L oui si ana j uri sprudence s t ates t her e m ustbe i den t i t y i n t h e t w o sui t s as t o t h e t h i n g dem an ded , t h e dem an d m u stbe f ou n dedN o. 08- 30779

4 o n th e s a m e ca u s e o f a c tio n , a n dth e d e m a n dm u s t b e b e tw e e nth e s a m e p a r tie s .” W ats on v. A m i t e Mi l l i ng Co. , 5 0 4 S o . 2 d1 1 4 9 , 1 1 5 2 (L a . C t. A p p . 1 9 8 7 ). At l e as tt wo L o u i s i a n aCo u r t s o f Ap p e a lh a v e h e l dt h a t , “wh e r e t he pl ai n t i f f an d d efen da n ti n the present a ct i on w ere codefenda n t s i n a p ri or act i on f i l ed byanot herpl ai n tif f, t he par t i es w er e no ti dent i c alas r equir ed f oran e x c e p tio n o f r e s ju d ic a ta to a p p ly”. Fi t ch v. V i n t age Pet roleum , I

n c. , 608 So. 2d 286, 289 (La. C t . A pp. 1992) ( quot i ng A m e rs on v. La. D e p’ tof Transp. & D e v. , 570 S o. 2 d51 , 54 (L a . C t. A p p . 19 9 0 )) . B eca u se S ecre taryD a rd en n e a n dF a h ren h olt z w e r e co d e fe n d a n ts inth e s ta t e - c o u r t a c tio n , b u t a r e o p p o s in gp a r tie s inth is a ctio n , L o u isia n a ’ s d o ctr in e of re s ju d ica taa p p e a r s in a p p lic a b le . B . A s n ot ed, w e neednot det erm i n e w h et h er re s ju d ica taapp l i es, how ever, becau se th i s act i on i s barred by the R o o ke r - Fe l dm an d o c tr in e . T h is d o c tr in e – d ev elop edintw o S u p rem e C ou r t d e c is io n s , R ooker v. Fi d el i ty TrustCo. , 26 3 U . S. 413 ( 19 23 ) , a nd D i s t r i c t of Col um bi a Cour t of Appe alsv . Fe l dm an , 460 U . S . 462 ( 198 3) –p rovi des: “l ow er f ederal c o u rt s l ack the pow er t o m odi f y or r eve r ses t at e c our tj udg m ent s bec ause 28 U . S. C . § 1257 v es t s exc l usive j u ri sd i cti on to rev i ew or m od i fy a sta te cou rt j u d gm en t i n the S u p rem e C ou rt”. LA C R e alEs t at eHo l di ngs, L. L. C. v . Bi lo x iMars hL a n dsCor p. , 2009 W L 937165, at* 2 ( 5th Ci r . 8 Apr . 2 00 9) (unpub l i s he d) . Ac c o r di ngly, t he R ooker

- Fe l dm an doctri n e bars di str ict co u rts fro m co n sid e rin g“ca se s b ro u g h t b yst ate- court l osers c o m pl ai ni ng o f

i nj ur i e s c aus e d b y s t at e - c o ur tj udg m e nt s r e nde r e d b e f o r e t he di s t r i c tc o ur tpr o c e e di ngs c o m m e nc e d a nd i nvit i ng di s t r i c tc o ur tr e vi e w a nd r eje c tio n o f th o s e ju d g m e n ts ”. Exxo n Mo bi l Cor p. v . SaudiBas i cI

ndus . Cor

p. , 5 4 4 U .S . 2 8 0 , 2 8 4 (2 0 0 5 ). Fahr e nho l t z c o nt e nds: “The r e w as no c o ns t i t ut i o nalv i o l at i o n unt i lt he S t ate C ou rtm ad e i t s deci si on ” . T h eref ore, h e fal l s squ arel y w i t h i n t h e rang e of cases Exxo n pl aces un der t h e reach of t h e R o o ke r - Fe l dm andoct ri n e.N o. 08- 30779

5 Fahr e nho l t z “f

i l e d s ui ti n f

e de r alc o ur ta f

t e rt he stat e p r o c e e di ngs e nde d, com pl ai n i n g of

an i nj u ry caused b y t h e st ate- court j u dg m en tan d seeking revi ew a n dreje c tio n o f th a t ju d g m e n t” . Exxon , 54 4 U . S. at 29 1. Acc o rdi n gl y, t he di st ri ctcourtcoul d h ave d i sm i ssed th is act i on un der t h e R o o ke r - Fe l dm an d o c tr in e . A s d is c u s s e d , th e L o u is i a n a c o u r t a p p lie dits o w n p r o c e d u r a l ru le s in concl u di n g F ah renh ol t z ha d n otproperl y rai sed h i s c on st i t u t i on ali ssue. (W e, o f co u r s e , g e n e r a llyre s p e c t s ta te -c o u r t p r o c e d u r a l d e te r m in a tio n s . See, e . g. , G lo v erv. Ca in , 128 F. 3d 900, 902 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) . ) The Loui si ana j u d gm en t, t he r e f o r e , do e s no ta ddr e s s t he c o ns t i t ut i o nali t y o f a pplyi ng a c e r t if

i cat i on requ i rem en tt o federal

- of f i ce c an di da t es. Si m i l arl y, w e express no opi n i on reg a rd i n g th e co n s tit u tio n a lityo f th e s e re q u ir e m e n ts . T o the ex ten t F a h ren h olt z m ays t at e a vi ab l e c o ns t i t ut i o nal c l ai m , i t m us tb e a ddr e s s e d i n af ut ur e a c t i o n, n o t in t h i s d e fa cto appealf r om a s t at e- c our tj udgm ent . N ee dl es s t o s ay, F ah renh ol t z’m ak i n g t h at c l ai m i n a f u t u re act i on , if

an y, w ou l d n o t be barred by re s ju d ica ta . III. F o rth e fo r e g o in gre a s o n s , th e ju d g m e n t is A F F IR M E D .