* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-41088

Summary Calendar

 

HERALIO FLORES; MARCO ANTONIO FLORES,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

CITIZENS STATE BANK OF ROMA, TEXAS, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-95-CV-062

- - - - - - - - - -

December 5, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Heralio Flores and Marco Antonio Flores filed a civil rights

and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)

complaint against the Citizens State Bank of Roma, Texas, various

officers of the bank, two constables, and several unknown

assistants. The gist of the factual allegations are that a

constable and his assistants broke into the Flores’ place of

business, a dance hall, and removed various items pursuant to a

state court judicial foreclosure. The district court granted
No. 96-41088

-2-

summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The judgment of the

district court may be affirmed on any basis supported by the

record. See Sojourner T v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir.

1992). 

The Flores’ suit, stripped to its essentials, is an attempt

to attack collaterally the validity of the state court judicial

foreclosure and writ of execution. See Chrissy F. by Medley v.

Mississippi Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 995 F.2d 595, 597, 599 (5th

Cir. 1993). Federal courts lack jurisdiction to engage in

appellate review of state-court determinations. District of

Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 & 482

(1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923). 

Termed the “Rooker-Feldman doctrine,” these decisions have been

interpreted by this court to prohibit a collateral attack on

state judgments. See, e.g., United States v. Shepherd, 23 F.3d

923, 924 (5th Cir. 1994). When issues raised in federal court

are “`inextricably intertwined’ with a state judgment and the

court is `in essence being called upon to review the state-court

decision,’ the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to conduct

such a review.” Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir.

1995)(internal quotations and citations omitted). 

The alleged deprivations of constitutional rights and RICO

claims arise solely from the state-court litigation and is

“inextricably intertwined" with the state court’s judgment. The

sole purpose of this action is to review the state court’s
No. 96-41088

-3-

foreclosure and seizure of property pursuant to the related writ

of execution and, therefore, cannot be reviewed in federal court.

Plaintiffs argue that they may collaterally attack this

judgment because it is void. Plaintiffs based their claim on a

lack of jurisdiction. "Assuming for purposes of the summary

judgment motion that these allegations were true, they would, at

most, render the judgment voidable, not void, and thus could not

be the basis of a collateral attack in federal court." Steph v.

Scott, 840 F.2d 267, 270 (5th Cir. 1988). 

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED