## 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 County Sheriff & s Office, in his personal * capacity; James Davis, Former Deputy * [UNPUBLISHED] of the Faulkner County Sheriff & s Office, * in his personal capacity; William Glenn, * Former Deputy of the Faulkner County * Sheriff & s Office, in his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 th e Dis trict Court of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action

. 1 Gooden alleged that defendant Arkansas state entities and empl oyees violated his Fifth Amendment rights under th e Taki ngs Clause by refusing to return property seize d pursuan t to a search warrant, after the state droppe d crim inal charges against him. The District Cour t concluded that Gooden was seeking review of an Arkansa s court & s dismissal of his i nverse 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 Columbi aCourt of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 47 6 (1983), and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413 , 416 (1923), federal district courts lack subject matte r jurisdicti on if relief requested in federal action would-4-

effe ctivelyreverse state court decision or void it s ruling).

Up on de novo review, we disagree that Gooden & s claim

was barred by the Rooker-Feldmandoctrine. W e nevertheless affirm the dismissal as we conclude-5-

Gooden did not demonstrate that he availed himself o f stat e appellate relief following the dismissal of hi s inverse co ndemnation action. Until Gooden has exhausted the state court appeals process, the federal court s
cann ot know whether the state would provide jus t compensation. See Williamson County Reg & l Planning Comm & n v. Hamilto n Bank , 473 U.S. 172, 195 (1985) (holding that if state p rovides an adequate procedure for seeking just compensati on, property owner cannot claim a violation of Just Compe nsation Clause until he has used the procedure and been denied just compensation). Neither the stat e tria l court & s dismissal of Gooden & s action, nor the fac t that any state appeal may be time-barred, demonstrate s tha t the Arkansas inverse condemnation procedure i s “unavailable or inadequate.” Id. at 197.
Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.

Attest:

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