Court Opinion

ID: 9410902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 00:00:48.724883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:00.801539
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30693        Document: 00516831018             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/24/2023

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

                                    Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                      No. 22-30693                                   July 24, 2023
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Latasha Sherman,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Karen P. Johnson; C P Commercial Properties, L.L.C.;
   Mackey Lane Properties, L.L.C.; Lighthouse Home
   Rentals,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 5:22-CV-1309
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Appellant Latasha Sherman filed suit against her landlord, Karen P.
   Johnson, and a group of commercial real estate companies, alleging that she
   was wrongfully evicted from Section 8 housing. The district court dismissed

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30693       Document: 00516831018          Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/24/2023

                                     No. 22-30693

   her complaint, concluding that she had failed to state a claim upon which
   relief could be granted. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.
            First, on appeal, Appellant fails to address the issues raised by the
   district court. Arguments that are not raised on appeal are waived. Hidden
   Oaks Ltd. v. City of Austin, 138 F.3d 1036, 1045 n.7 (5th Cir. 1998).
   Specifically, the district court accepted the magistrate judge’s report and
   recommendation that Sherman’s attempts to challenge the outcome of the
   city court eviction proceedings were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine;
   her attempts to assert claims against the private defendants failed because
   there was no basis upon which to conclude they were state actors who could
   be found liable under Section 1983; and her passing references to Section 8
   housing regulations and unspecified executive orders failed to create federal
   question jurisdiction. In her brief, Appellant fails to address any of the
   foregoing issues. She has therefore “forfeited any challenge to the district
   court’s primary holding that the allegations failed to state a plausible claim.”
   Stevens v. St. Tammany Par. Gov’t, 17 F.4th 563, 574 (5th Cir. 2021); see also
   FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8); Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 401 n.1 (5th Cir.
   2021).
            Even assuming Appellant adequately briefed the issue, Appellant
   cannot readjudicate her claims in federal court. Federal courts have limited
   jurisdiction. When a litigant loses in state court, they are barred from
   subsequently bringing that same claim in federal court. See Rooker v. Fidelity
   Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
   Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). This is known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
   which applies to eviction-related proceedings. See Truong v. Bank of America,
   717 F.3d 377, 386 (5th Cir. 2013) (concluding that the district court had
   jurisdiction to hear Truong’s claims, because they were “independent
   claims” for Rooker-Feldman purposes, as they had not yet been adjudicated
   by a state court); Wells v. Ali, 304 F. App’x. 292, 294 (5th Cir. 2008) (noting

                                              2
Case: 22-30693      Document: 00516831018          Page: 3    Date Filed: 07/24/2023

                                    No. 22-30693

   that Wells’ eviction-related claims had to be dismissed because they were
   merely attempts to relitigate in federal court). Because the state court entered
   judgment against Appellant, she is barred from subsequently bringing that
   same claim in federal court. Specifically, in her brief, Appellant alleges a
   violation of her due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and
   seeks reversal of the district court’s judgement, which would require reversal
   of the state court’s judgment. However, “a plaintiff may not seek a reversal
   of a state court judgment simply by casting his complaint in the form of a civil
   rights action.” Hagerty v. Succession of Clement, 749 F.2d 217, 220 (5th Cir.
   1984).
            Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                              3