United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1449

___________

Richard O. Gooden, Jr., *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

Faulkner County Sheriff&s Department; *

Faulkner County Road/Highway *

Office; Bob Blankenship, Sheriff *

of Faulkner County, in his official *

and personal capacity; Charles *

Castleberry, Former Sheriff of Faulkner *

County, in his personal capacity; Ollie *

Willborg, Former Chief Deputy of *

the Faulkner County Sheriff&s Office, *

Appeal from the United States

in his personal capacity; Jerry Bradley, *

District Court for the

Former Chief Deputy of the Faulkner *

Eastern District of Arkansas.

County Sheriff&s Office, in his personal *

capacity; James Davis, Former Deputy * 

 [UNPUBLISHED]

of the Faulkner County Sheriff&s Office, *

in his personal capacity; William Glenn, *

Former Deputy of the Faulkner County *

Sheriff&s Office, in his personal *

capacity; Ronald Lewis, Former *

Sergeant of the Arkansas State Police, in *

his personal capacity; Tommy Goodwin, *

Col., Former Director of the Arkansas *

State Police, in his personal capacity; *

John Bailey, Col., Director of the *
-2-

Arkansas State Police, in his personal *
The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas.

-3-

and official capacity; Arkansas State *

Police, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: November 6,

1997

 Filed: November 7,

1997

___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Richard O. Gooden appeals the dismissal by the

District Court of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action.

1

Gooden alleged that defendant Arkansas state entities and

employees violated his Fifth Amendment rights under the

Takings Clause by refusing to return property seized

pursuant to a search warrant, after the state dropped

criminal charges against him. The District Court

concluded that Gooden was seeking review of an Arkansas

court&s dismissal of his inverse condemnation action, and

dismissed his federal action based on the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine. See Charchenko v. City of Stillwater, 47 F.3d

981, 983 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding that under District of

Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476

(1983), and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413,

416 (1923), federal district courts lack subject matter

jurisdiction if relief requested in federal action would
-4-

effectively reverse state court decision or void its

ruling).

Upon de novo review, we disagree that Gooden&s claim

was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. We

nevertheless affirm the dismissal as we conclude
-5-

Gooden did not demonstrate that he availed himself of

state appellate relief following the dismissal of his

inverse condemnation action. Until Gooden has exhausted

the state court appeals process, the federal courts

cannot know whether the state would provide just

compensation. See Williamson County Reg&l Planning Comm&n

v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 195 (1985) (holding that

if state provides an adequate procedure for seeking just

compensation, property owner cannot claim a violation of

Just Compensation Clause until he has used the procedure

and been denied just compensation). Neither the state

trial court&s dismissal of Gooden&s action, nor the fact

that any state appeal may be time-barred, demonstrates

that the Arkansas inverse condemnation procedure is

“unavailable or inadequate.” Id. at 197. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.