Falkenhorst v. Harris County Children's Protective Services , 711 F. App'x 228 ( 2018 )

Case: 17-20274 Document: 00514343240 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 17-20274
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar February 9, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce
RAINER ERIC NIKOLAUS FALKENHORST, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
HARRIS COUNTY CHILDREN'S PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Mr. George D.
Ford (Attorney); PATRICK S. SHELTON, Ex Judge; GREG ABOTT, Governor;
JEAN SPAILDING HUGHES, Judge,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:17-CV-242
Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Rainer Eric Nikolaus Falkenhorst, Texas prisoner # 01938554, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Falkenhorst further moves for the appointment of counsel,
for oral argument, and for leave to file a supplemental brief to present evidence
in support of government intervention under 28 U.S.C. § 2403.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 17-20274 Document: 00514343240 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2018
No. 17-20274
Falkenhorst sued Harris County Children’s Protective Services and its
director George D. Ford, Jr.; Texas Governor Greg Abbott; and eight judges
who participated in a 2006 state court case regarding the termination of
Falkenhorst’s parental rights over his child, claiming that the defendants
conspired to deprive him of the custody of his child; deprived him of due
process, a fair trial, and counsel; defamed and defrauded him; and breached
their fiduciary duties. Falkenhorst sought a retrial of the case in state court,
full custody of his child, and monetary damages for court error during the
original state proceedings.
On appeal, Falkenhorst challenges only the conclusion that the Rooker-
Feldman 1 doctrine deprived the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction
over his federal claims. Our review is de novo. See Brunson v. Nichols, 875
F.3d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 2017).
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to “cases 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.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus.
Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Because Falkenhorst’s § 1983 suit sought to
overturn the state-court judgment, the district court lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction over the § 1983 claims pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
See id. at 283-84, 291-92; see also Bibbs v. Harris, 578 F. App’x 448, 449 (5th
Cir. 2014). 2
1See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462 (1983).
2Although an unpublished opinion issued after January 1, 1996 is not controlling
authority, it may be considered as persuasive authority. See Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391,
401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006); 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
Case: 17-20274 Document: 00514343240 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/09/2018
No. 17-20274
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, ORAL
ARGUMENT, and INTERVENTION DENIED.
3