Court Opinion

ID: 991959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:44:43.201625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:35.211381
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JASON R. CRADDOCK; DAVID J.
LYTLE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.                                                                    No. 96-1910

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE
WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge.
(CA-96-628-A)

Submitted: February 25, 1997

Decided: April 17, 1997

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jason R. Craddock, David J. Lytle, Appellants Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Jason R. Craddock and David J. Lytle appeal the district court's
dismissal of their complaint as frivolous. Because the district court
was without subject matter jurisdiction to consider this action, we
affirm.

In 1992 Craddock and Lytle were convicted in the Circuit Court of
Prince William County, Virginia, of trespassing at an abortion clinic.
They were fined $2500 each. In May 1996, they filed the instant
action, asserting that the trial judge erred in limiting evidence at trial.
Craddock and Lytle contended that the court's rulings deprived them
of their right to mount an effective defense. They sought declaratory
relief, dismissal of their criminal case and vacatur of the fines, or
remand for a new trial. Additionally, they moved for injunctive relief
to prevent the court from collecting the fines. The district court dis-
missed the action with prejudice upon a frivolity determination.

Federal district courts and courts of appeals have no jurisdiction to
review a final judgment of a state court that has acted in its judicial
capacity. Such jurisdiction lies only with the United States Supreme
Court. District of Columbia Court App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,
482 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16
(1923). In the subject case, Craddock and Lytle attempted to obtain
review of a state court judgment in federal district court by framing
their claim as a violation of the Constitution. Such an attempt flies in
the face of Feldman.*

Because the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the
claims, we affirm the dismissal of this action as frivolous. We dis-
pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
_________________________________________________________________
*The record does not suggest that Craddock or Lytle are, or ever have
been, in custody; therefore, this action does not sound in habeas corpus.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254, amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214; Wright v.
Bailey, 544 F.2d 737, 740 (4th Cir. 1976).

                     2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3