Opinion ID: 20147
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: analysis

Text: 7 The only issue raised by the parties on appeal is the propriety of the district court's decision to abstain from deciding the instant case pursuant to the abstention doctrine announced by the Supreme Court in Younger v. Harris. 4 Federal courts do not abstain on Younger grounds becausethey lack jurisdiction; rather, Younger abstention reflects a court's prudential decision not to exercise [equity] jurisdiction which it in fact possesses. 5 Prior to oral argument in this court, we requested the parties to submit supplemental memoranda addressing whether -- abstention issues aside -- we may exercise jurisdiction over this case. Federal courts may examine the basis of their jurisdiction sua sponte, even on appeal. 6 8 The jurisdiction of the federal courts is established by the Constitution and by congressional statutes. Article III of the Constitution delineates the outermost boundary of potential federal court jurisdiction; actual jurisdiction is then conferred by statute. 7 Article III provides that [t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States.... 8 Weekly's lawsuit is framed as a case arising under the laws of the United States, specifically 42 U.S.C. 1306(a), which governs the disclosure of information in the possession of the Social Security Administration. As such, Weekly's lawsuit falls within the boundaries of the potential jurisdiction of the federal courts as established by Article III of the Constitution. 9 No statute exists, however, granting federal district courts jurisdiction to hear appeals from state court decisions. 28 U.S.C. 1257 provides that [f]inal judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari.... No parallel provision exists similarly granting appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions to the inferior federal courts. The Supreme Court has definitively established, in what has become known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, that federal district courts, as courts of original jurisdiction, lack appellate jurisdiction to review, modify, or nullify final orders of state courts. 9 If a state trial court errs the judgment is not void, it is to be reviewed and corrected by the appropriate state appellate court. Thereafter, recourse at the federal level is limited solely to an application for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. 10 10 Appellant Weekly has already pressed his claim at each level of the Louisiana state court system. He appealed the final determination of the Louisiana state courts to the United States Supreme Court, in which his petition for a Writ of Certiorari was denied. Weekly now turns to the lower federal courts seeking to enjoin enforcement of the Louisiana state courts' decisions. But the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear Weekly's claim, even to the preliminary stage of considering prudential abstention under Younger. Subject only to express statutory jurisdictional grants, federal district courts are courts of original jurisdiction. They cannot sit as appellate courts in review of state court judgments. As that is precisely what Weekly asked the district court to do, dismissal of his claim was proper. Thus, we do not reach the question whether Younger abstention is proper in the instant case; rather, for lack ofjurisdiction, we affirm the district court's judgment of dismissal. AFFIRMED