Court Opinion

ID: 13914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 06:31:04+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:34.606957
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                       _____________________

                            No. 97-30281
                          Summary Calendar
                       _____________________

NEW SUNLIGHT BAPTIST CHURCH, ET AL.,

                                                        Plaintiffs,

NEW SUNLIGHT BAPTIST CHURCH,

                                               Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                versus

STATE OF LOUISIANA, through
its Judiciary Branch, ET AL.,

                                                        Defendants,

14TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
ET AL.,

                                            Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                  Western District of Louisiana
                        USDC No. 97-CV-312
_________________________________________________________________
                         January 12, 1998
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     New Sunlight Baptist Church appeals the dismissal of its case

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).    It argues that the district

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
court erred in concluding that state judicial officers are immune

from suits seeking injunctive relief.   It further argues that the

district court erred in determining that the excommunicated members

of the church had not violated the church’s rights under the First

Amendment because their resort to the state courts did not amount

to state action.

     The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to

entertain these claims due to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.     See

Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317-18 (5th Cir. 1994).

                                                  A F F I R M E D.

                               -2-