Case Name: Eric GANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of TEXAS; Unknown State Officials, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-23
Citations: 123 F. App'x 622
Docket Number: No. 04-10757
Parties: Eric GANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of TEXAS; Unknown State Officials, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 123
Pages: 622–623

Head Matter:
Eric GANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of TEXAS; Unknown State Officials, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-10757.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 23, 2005.
Eric Gant, Grand Prairie, TX, pro se.
Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Eric Gant appeals the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit challenging as unconstitutional state court rulings against him. As the district court determined, Gant's claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir.1995); Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir.1994). Gant's conclusional assertion that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply to his case because any ruling in his favor would not affect any state court rulings is patently without merit; the face of his complaint sought reversal of the state court rulings and the entry of judgment in his favor in the challenged state court case.
Because the appeal raises no nonfrivolous issues, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cíe. R. 42.2. We caution Gant that the filing or prosecution of frivolous appeals will subject him to sanctions. Gant should review all pending appeals to ensure that they are not frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).