Case Name: Terry JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bill RHEA; Joseph B. Morris; Supreme Court of Texas; Nicki Mathison, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-17
Citations: 86 F. App'x 778
Docket Number: No. 03-11088
Parties: Terry JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bill RHEA; Joseph B. Morris; Supreme Court of Texas; Nicki Mathison, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 86
Pages: 778–779

Head Matter:
Terry JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bill RHEA; Joseph B. Morris; Supreme Court of Texas; Nicki Mathison, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-11088.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 17, 2004.
Terry James, pro se, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Terry James appeals from the district court's dismissal of his civil-rights lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. He has also filed a motion seeking appointment of counsel on appeal. Because he has failed to show "exceptional circumstances" warranting the appointment of counsel on appeal, that motion is DENIED. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir.1982).
We review a district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. See Williams v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 242 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir.2001). Because James's complaint is inextricably intertwined with certain state court judgments, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review his complaint. See United States v. Shepherd, 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th Cir.1994); see also District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). Accordingly, the district court's judgment of dismissal is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.