### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 7

- 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 , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:1 7

- 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. § 1915 A (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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. 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: 02/09/2018No. 1 7

- 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 defen dants 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 hi s child, and monetary damages for court error during the original state proceedings. On appeal, Falkenhorst challenges only the conclusion that the Rooker

Feldman 1 doctrine deprive d the district court of subject

- matter jurisdiction

over his federal claim s . 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 su it sought to overturn the state

- court judgment, th e distri ct 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. C our t 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) ; 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. Case: 17-20274 Document: 00514343240 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2018No. 1 7

- 20274

3 AFFIRMED ; MOTION S FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL , ORAL AR GUMENT, and INTERVENTION DENIED

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