Chamberlain v. Court of Appeals ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 22, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-41470
Conference Calendar
MARGARET CHAMBERLAIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COURT OF APPEALS, Ninth District, Jefferson County,
Texas (Beaumont); ALFRED S. GERSON, Judge at County
Court at Law No. 1, Jefferson County, Texas (Beaumont,
Texas); GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:03-CV-340
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Margaret Chamberlain appeals the district court’s dismissal
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983
lawsuit asserting constitutional violations arising out of the
way her state-court lawsuit was processed. A district court’s
dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reviewed
de novo. See Williams v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 242 F.3d
315, 318 (5th Cir. 2001).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 03-41470
-2-
Chamberlain renews her argument that the district court had
jurisdiction to review her claims of constitutional deprivations
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, under the Fifth, Seventh, and Fourteenth
Amendments, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She also contends that
the district court had jurisdiction under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)
because the state-court judgment was void. This court will not
consider this newly raised argument. See Stewart Glass & Mirror,
Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Discount Centers, Inc., 200 F.3d 307,
316-17 (5th Cir. 2000).
Chamberlain’s complaint is inextricably intertwined with the
merits of her state-court suit, and examination of her claims of
constitutional deprivations would require the district court to
examine the validity of the state courts’ rulings. Accordingly,
the complaint was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity
Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923); see also United States v.
Shepherd, 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court’s
judgment is AFFIRMED.