Court Opinion

ID: 9409662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 00:00:37.559819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:52.433363
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30720    Document: 00516824614       Page: 1    Date Filed: 07/18/2023

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                              ____________                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                               No. 22-30720                             FILED
                                                                    July 18, 2023
                             Summary Calendar
                             ____________                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                        Clerk
   Deborah B. Weiser,

                                                        Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                    versus

   Elizabeth W. Castille, personally; Howard A. Weiser, Jr.,
   personally; Stephen D. Enright, Judge, officially; Stephen C.
   Grefer, Judge, officially; Gretna City; Belinda C. Constant,
   Mayor, officially and personally; Danika Gorrondona, officially and
   personally; Ronald W. Morrison, Jr., personally; Morrison Law
   Group, P.L.C., officially; Gordon R. Konrad, personally;
   Konrad Law Firm, L.L.C., officially; David H. Alfortish,
   personally; Law Office of David H. Alfortish, L.L.C.,
   officially; Michael Rosenblatt, personally; Law Office of
   Michael Rosenblatt, L.L.C., officially; 21st Mortgage
   Corporation; Iberia Bank; Mark Morgan, officially and
   personally; First Horizon Bank, successor by merger to Iberia Bank,

                                          Defendants—Appellees.
                 ______________________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                          USDC No. 2:20-CV-2043
                 ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-30720          Document: 00516824614             Page: 2      Date Filed: 07/18/2023

                                           No. 22-30720

   Per Curiam: *
           This pro se appeal arises from Deborah B. Weiser’s (“Deborah”)
   challenge to the district court’s dismissal of her claims on the basis of
   qualified and judicial immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction
   pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 1 Because Deborah fails to
   demonstrate jurisdiction over these claims and overcome qualified and
   judicial immunity, we AFFIRM.
                                     I.     Background
           A. Factual History
           Deborah and her late husband Howard A. Weiser Sr. (“Howard Sr.”)
   were married in the state of Louisiana from February 2004 until Howard
   Sr.’s death in May 2018. During their marriage, the couple allegedly acquired
   community property, owned and operated rental apartment units at 1544
   Claire Avenue, rented three mobile home trailer units and a washeteria at
   1518 Claire Avenue, and contracted a lawncare maintenance business with
   the City of Gretna (“the City”). The companies operated under Howard A.
   Weiser, L.L.C. Deborah was the registered agent and manager of the
   businesses for the duration of the marriage, “with the exception of a
   temporary separation period due to infidelity.” She alleges that their
   businesses generated gross revenues totaling $8,450 per month.
           Deborah further alleges that in July 2014, Defendant-Appellee
   Elizabeth W. Castille (“Castille”), Howard Sr.’s daughter, began exploiting
   her father’s “limited reading capacity and capitalized on his lack of
   educational achievements” to “manipulat[e] and maneuver[]” her father to
           _____________________
           *
               This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
           1
             See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and Dist. of Columbia Ct. of
   Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

                                                 2
Case: 22-30720        Document: 00516824614              Page: 3       Date Filed: 07/18/2023

                                         No. 22-30720

   divorce Deborah and transfer his estate to Castille. Her alleged efforts were
   successful as Howard Sr. filed for divorce in the 24th Judicial District Court
   in Jefferson Parish with Defendant-Appellee Judge Stephen D. Enright, Jr.
   presiding, and later transferred his estate to Castille.
           B. Procedural History
           Deborah filed an action in district court against roughly twenty named
   defendants including Castille, Howard Jr., certain financial institutions,
   attorneys involved in the state court litigation, judges who presided over her
   state court cases, the City, and city officials in their individual and official
   capacities. Her voluminous amended complaint included fifteen various state
   and federal claims. 2 She alleged that the defendants individually and
   collaboratively violated her state and federal rights in the underlying
   proceedings. Specifically, she asserted that these actors used fraudulent
   documents, statements, omissions, and actions in furtherance of a fraudulent
   scheme to have Howard Sr. divorce her and effectively oust her out of the
   property and its earnings. She also averred that, but for the fraud, legal error,
   and racial discrimination, she would have won all of her cases in state court.
           The district court first granted Judges Enright and Grefer’s Rule
   12(b)(1) motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. It later granted Rule
   12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim for the Morrison Law
           _____________________
           2
             Deborah’s complaint included federal claims under: (1.) 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
   2202 (the Declaratory Judgment Act); (2.) the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
   United States Constitution; (3.) Louisiana Constitution Article I §§ 2 and 3; (4.) the Civil
   Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986; and (5.) the Fair Credit Reporting
   Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, and the Fair Debt Collection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692. Her complaint
   also included pendent state law claims under: (1.) Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article
   863; (2.) Louisiana Civil Code articles 2298, 2315, 2316; (3.) intentional negligence; (4.)
   intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5.) conversion; (6.) mental anguish; (7.)
   tortious interference with contract; (8.) breach of contract; (9.) violations of the
   professional code of conduct; and (10.) the Louisiana Tort Claims Act.

                                                3
Case: 22-30720       Document: 00516824614            Page: 4     Date Filed: 07/18/2023

                                       No. 22-30720

   Group, P.L.C. and Ronald W. Morrison, Jr. In a separate order it granted
   Rule 12(b)(1) motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction for the Konrad Law
   Firm, LLC, Gordon R. Konrad, and the First Horizon Bank. 3
          The district court then granted Castille and Howard Jr.’s motion to
   dismiss all claims against them for lack of jurisdiction. It later dismissed all
   of Deborah’s claims against Michael Rosenblatt, the Law Office of Michael
   Rosenblatt, L.L.C., the Law Office of David H. Alfortish, L.L.C., and David
   H. Alfortish, on grounds that Deborah failed to timely serve notice of the
   lawsuit to these defendants for nearly a year. Finally, on October 14, 2022, it
   entered a final judgment granting the City and city officials’ motion for
   summary judgment on qualified immunity and dismissed all claims against
   the remaining defendants for lack of jurisdiction. Deborah timely appealed.
                                 II.    Discussion
          A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
                      i. Standard of Review
          We review de novo the district court’s order granting Appellees’
   motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). See Kling v. Hebert, 60
   F.4th 281, 283–84 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting Ramming v. United States, 281
   F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001)). “In a 12(b)(1) factual attack, the district
   court’s resolution of disputed jurisdictional facts is reviewed for clear error.”
   Id. (citing In re S. Recycling, L.L.C., 982 F.3d 374, 379 (5th Cir. 2020)).
          “Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be found in any one of three
   instances: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by
   undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented
   by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts.” Ramming,
          _____________________
          3
              First Horizon Bank is the successor by merger to Iberia Bank which was the
   originally named defendant in the state court proceedings.

                                            4
Case: 22-30720      Document: 00516824614          Page: 5    Date Filed: 07/18/2023

                                    No. 22-30720

   281 F.3d at 161. The burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is
   on the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. at 161; see also Menchaca v. Chrysler
   Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 507, 511 (5th Cir. 1980).
                    ii. Analysis
          Deborah argues that the state court judgments are the result of
   constitutional violations and misinterpretation of state law, and but for these
   errors she would have prevailed in state court and gained ownership of the
   property at issue. But as the district court correctly held, the only way
   Deborah’s ownership to the property could change “would be a reversal of
   the state court judgment in [Castille’s] favor.” Weiser v. Castille, No. 20-
   2043, 2022 WL 9349749, at *3 (E.D. La. Oct. 14, 2022). Thus, a
   jurisdictional bar prohibits us from evaluating the merits of her claim.
          The Rooker-Feldman doctrine “holds that inferior federal courts do
   not have the power to modify or reverse state court judgments.” Union
   Planters Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Salih, 369 F.3d 457, 462 (5th Cir. 2004); see also
   Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 281 (2005)
   (holding that federal courts are barred from ruling on claims “brought by
   state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments
   rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting
   district court review and rejection of those judgments.”). In other words,
   “federal district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider cases
   where: (1) the federal court plaintiff lost in state court; (2) the plaintiff’s
   alleged injuries were caused by the state court judgment; (3) plaintiff’s claims
   invite the federal court to review and reject the state court judgment; and (4)
   the state court judgment was rendered before plaintiff filed proceedings in
   federal district court.” Tomasella on Behalf of Est. of Tomasella v. Kaufman
   Cnty. Child Support, No. 22-10760, 2022 WL 17752124, at *2 (5th Cir. Dec.
   19, 2022) (per curiam) (unpublished). Additionally, the doctrine “prohibits

                                          5
Case: 22-30720      Document: 00516824614           Page: 6    Date Filed: 07/18/2023

                                     No. 22-30720

   federal court review of claims that are inextricably intertwined with a state
   court decision.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). We have explained that
   issues are “inextricably intertwined . . . when a plaintiff casts a complaint in
   the form of a civil rights action simply to circumvent the Rooker-Feldman
   rule.” Richard v. Hoechst Celanese Chem. Grp., Inc., 355 F.3d 345, 351 (5th Cir.
   2003) (citing Liedtke v. State Bar of Tex., 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994)).
          Deborah asserts that by dismissing her claims the district court
   “committed manifest constitutional and manifest error in its statutory
   interpretation and application of the law.” She contends that this manifest
   error resulted in the violation of her Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial
   and violation of her Ninth Amendment right to protection from “state actors
   and private entities and individuals” who abused state statutes to strip her of
   “her money and immovable property[.]” All of her arguments and claims to
   relief, however, share a common and fatal theme—they ask us to review her
   state court proceedings and evaluate whether that court properly applied
   state law when deciding that she had no rights to the contested property. But
   as stated, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits us from reviewing those
   state court decisions. Union Planters Bank, 369 F.3d at 457. Accordingly,
   because Deborah’s theory of federal jurisdiction is “inextricably
   intertwined” with a challenged state court judgment, she has failed to meet
   her burden under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). See Richard, 355 F.3d at 351.
   We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of her claims against each
   defendant.
          B. Qualified Immunity
          Deborah dedicates a significant portion of her brief to arguing that the
   district court “abused its discretion and was bias and prejudice” in granting
   the City’s motion for summary judgment as to her equal protection and due
   process claims after determining that it was entitled to immunity. The district

                                          6
Case: 22-30720       Document: 00516824614           Page: 7     Date Filed: 07/18/2023

                                      No. 22-30720

   court explained that its decision was based on Deborah’s lack of evidentiary
   support to overcome the City’s affirmative defense of qualified immunity.
   See Weiser v. Castille, No. 20-2043, 2022 WL 9349749, at *4–8 (E.D. La. Oct.
   14, 2022).
                      i. Standard of Review
          “A motion to dismiss granted on the basis of qualified immunity is
   reviewed de novo.” T.O. v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., 2 F.4th 407, 413 (5th
   Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 60, 60 (2022). Therefore, we accept all
   well-pleaded facts as true and draw all inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Id.
   “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
   matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
   Id. “Conclusional allegations, naked assertions, and formulaic recitations of
   the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. (internal citation omitted).
                     ii. Analysis
          To overcome qualified immunity, Deborah is required to demonstrate
   that: (1) the city officials violated one of her statutory or constitutional rights;
   and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged
   conduct. See Backe v. LeBlanc, 691 F.3d 645, 648 (5th Cir. 2012) (“[A]
   plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must plead specific facts
   that both allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
   is liable for the harm [s]he has alleged and that defeat a qualified immunity
   defense with equal specificity.”). The district court granted qualified
   immunity to the city officials because Deborah failed to plead specific facts
   or proffer any evidence to demonstrate the existence of an equal protection
   or due process violation.
          Although Deborah challenges the district court’s order of dismissal
   and its summary judgment in favor of defendants, she does not oppose the
   grant of qualified immunity to the City and city officials. In fact, Deborah’s

                                            7
Case: 22-30720       Document: 00516824614           Page: 8     Date Filed: 07/18/2023

                                      No. 22-30720

   brief is silent on the issue of qualified immunity altogether, thus her claim is
   waived. Goodman v. Harris Cnty., 571 F.3d 388, 399 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding
   that claims not briefed are waived). Therefore, we affirm the district court’s
   judgment granting summary judgment in favor of these defendants on the
   basis of qualified immunity and lack of jurisdiction.
          C. Judicial Immunity
          Finally, Deborah challenges the district court’s decision regarding
   judicial immunity. She argues that the district court erred in dismissing her
   suit against the judges because she “sought injunctive relief against state
   [j]udges in their official and individual capacities, and not against the state
   itself.” We disagree.
          A judge generally has absolute immunity from suits. “There are only
   two circumstances under which judicial immunity may be overcome. ‘First,
   a judge is not immune from liability for nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not
   taken in the judge’s judicial capacity.’” Davis v. Tarrant Cnty., Tex., 565 F.3d
   214, 221 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991)).
   “Second, a judge is not immune for actions, though judicial in nature, taken
   in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Id. (citations omitted).
   “Allegations of bad faith or malice are not sufficient to overcome judicial
   immunity.” Id.
          Deborah avers that because her claims are not against the State but
   instead against state judicial officials, the district court’s denial of her request
   for injunctive relief and its grant of immunity was in error. But her argument
   does not assert that the judges engaged in nonjudicial action or that they
   lacked jurisdiction in rendering their decisions. Thus, under this court’s
   jurisprudence, she has failed to overcome their judicial immunity. Id.
   Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing Judges
   Enright and Grefer.

                                            8
Case: 22-30720        Document: 00516824614      Page: 9   Date Filed: 07/18/2023

                                  No. 22-30720

                           III.   CONCLUSION
          For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment
   in all respects.

                                       9