IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-20274

Summary Calendar

RAINER ERIC NIKOLAUS FALKENHORST,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

HARRIS COUNTY CHILDREN'S PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Mr. George D. 

Ford (Attorney); PATRICK S. SHELTON, Ex Judge; GREG ABOTT, Governor; 

JEAN SPAILDING HUGHES, Judge,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CV-242

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rainer Eric Nikolaus Falkenhorst, Texas prisoner # 01938554, appeals 

the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Falkenhorst further moves for the appointment of counsel, 

for oral argument, and for leave to file a supplemental brief to present evidence 

in support of government intervention under 28 U.S.C. § 2403.

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 9, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-20274 Document: 00514343240 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2018
No. 17-20274

2

Falkenhorst sued Harris County Children’s Protective Services and its 

director George D. Ford, Jr.; Texas Governor Greg Abbott; and eight judges

who participated in a 2006 state court case regarding the termination of 

Falkenhorst’s parental rights over his child, claiming that the defendants 

conspired to deprive him of the custody of his child; deprived him of due 

process, a fair trial, and counsel; defamed and defrauded him; and breached 

their fiduciary duties. Falkenhorst sought a retrial of the case in state court, 

full custody of his child, and monetary damages for court error during the 

original state proceedings. 

On appeal, Falkenhorst challenges only the conclusion that the RookerFeldman1 doctrine deprived the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction

over his federal claims. Our review is de novo. See Brunson v. Nichols, 875 

F.3d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 2017).

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to “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.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. 

Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Because Falkenhorst’s § 1983 suit sought to 

overturn the state-court judgment, the district court lacked subject-matter 

jurisdiction over the § 1983 claims pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 

See id. at 283-84, 291-92; see also Bibbs v. Harris, 578 F. App’x 448, 449 (5th 

Cir. 2014).2

 

1 See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 

460 U.S. 462 (1983).

2 Although an unpublished opinion issued after January 1, 1996 is not controlling 

authority, it may be considered as persuasive authority. See Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 

401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006); 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 17-20274 Document: 00514343240 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2018
No. 17-20274

3

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, ORAL 

ARGUMENT, and INTERVENTION DENIED.

 Case: 17-20274 Document: 00514343240 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/09/2018