Anzalone v. State of Louisiana ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-31298
Summary Calendar
JOHNNY S. ANZALONE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.,
Defendants,
DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE LOUISIANA
STATE BAR ASSOCIATION; INDEPENDENCE TOWN OF;
PASCAL F. CALOGERO, JR.; WALTER F. MARCUS, JR.;
JAMES L. DENNIS; JACK C. WATSON, HARRY T. LEMMON;
PIKE HALL, JR.; CATHERINE D. KIMBALL; CHARLES
PLATSMIER; FRED G. OURS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 97-CV-3488-B
--------------------
October 18, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Johnny Anzalone appeals the dismissal for lack of federal
subject matter jurisdiction of his federal civil rights claims
and supplemental state law claims. Anzalone filed suit in
district court against 13 individual defendants who represented
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-31298
-2-
the State of Louisiana, the Louisiana Supreme Court, the
Disciplinary Board of the Louisiana Bar Association, the
Disciplinary Counsel of the Louisiana Bar Association, the
Louisiana State Bar Association, and the Town of Independence.
Anzalone alleged that individuals from these entities violated
his constitutional and civil rights by their actions to place his
license to practice law in disability inactive status.
The district court properly determined that it lacked
jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman** doctrine, which
precludes federal subject matter jurisdiction over challenges to
state-court decisions in cases arising out of judicial
proceedings. Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 946
(5th Cir. 1994). Anzalone argues that this court should
recognize an exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and allow
jurisdiction over his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He contends that the
doctrine should apply only when the party has not had an
opportunity to raise his federal claims in the state court
proceeding. However, this court has held in similar cases that
Rooker-Feldman operates even when the prior proceedings may have
been conducted in the absence of such an opportunity. See
Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994).
In addition, Anzalone argues that the district court erred
in determining that the members of the Louisiana Supreme Court
and of the Disciplinary Board were immune from suit. He also
**
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923);
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462(1983).
No. 98-31298
-3-
argues that his claim against the Town of Independence was
erroneously dismissed to be filed in state court because it would
place an undue burden on him by requiring him to litigate
identical issues in two separate forums. However, Anzalone has
failed to cite to any relevant authority to support his
positions. Failure to present any authority in support of an
argument constitutes an abandonment of the issue. United States
v. Heacock, 31 F.3d 249, 258 (5th Cir. 1994); Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
As the district court did not err in dismissing Anzalone’s
complaint for lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine and Anzalone has failed to adequately brief the
remaining issues he raises on appeal, the district court decision
is AFFIRMED.