Case Name: RESTITUTION REVIVAL CHURCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WACO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-28
Citations: 136 F. App'x 702
Docket Number: No. 04-50729
Parties: RESTITUTION REVIVAL CHURCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WACO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, DefendantAppellee.
Judges: Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 136
Pages: 702–703

Head Matter:
RESTITUTION REVIVAL CHURCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WACO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, DefendantAppellee.
No. 04-50729.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 28, 2005.
Mustafa Engin Derkunt, Austin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Philip E. McCleery, Sheehy, Lovelace & Mayfield, Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Restitution Revival Church ("Restitution Revival") appeals the dismissal of its 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against Waco Independent School District ("WISD"), asserting violations of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as a violation of the Texas Religious Freedom Act arising out of WISD's acquisition through state condemnation proceedings of three tracts of land adjacent to and owned by Restitution Revival. WISD asserts that dismissal was proper, renewing its argument that Restitution Revival's claims are not ripe and are barred by res judicata.
Although neither party addresses the issue, we find that Restitution Revival's lawsuit, by which it seeks to collaterally attack the state-court judgment in the condemnation proceedings, is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir.1994); see also Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). Restitution Revival's proper remedy was to seek certiorari from the Supreme Court after the Texas Supreme Court denied review in the condemnation proceedings, not file suit in federal district court. See Liedtke, 18 F.3d at 317. The district court's dismissal of the lawsuit is AFFIRMED. See Doody v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 242 F.3d 286, 289 (5th Cir.2001).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).