Vinson v. Colom ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 99-60826
Summary Calendar
_____________________
HARRY W. VINSON; BRAD VINSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
DOROTHY COLOM; WILLIAM (BILL) BENSON,
His Agents and Assigns and His
Insurance Carrier, State Farm Fire
Casualty Co.; STATE FARM FIRE AND
CASUALTY COMPANY; FRED M. BUSH, JR.,
His Agents and Assigns and His
Insurance Carrier to be named after
discovery; KAY TRAPP, Her Agents and
Assigns and Her Insurance Carrier to
be named after discovery; PHELPS DUNBAR
LLP LAW FIRM, Their Agents and Assigns
and Their Insurance Carrier to be named
after discovery,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:99-CV-98-B-D
_________________________________________________________________
July 27, 2000
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
The plaintiffs appeal the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) dismissal of their civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3), as well as the district court’s order
requiring them to obtain prior permission before filing any other
action in the district court. The plaintiffs’ complaint alleged
that the defendants conspired to deprive them of various
constitutional rights by having Mississippi Chancery Court Judge
Dorothy Colom appoint William Benson as conservator of Woodrow W.
Vinson.
“Federal courts, both trial and appellate, have a continuing
obligation to examine the basis for their subject-matter
jurisdiction.” MCG, Inc. v. Great W. Energy Corp., 896 F.2d 170,
173 (5th Cir. 1990). “The issue may be raised by parties, or by
the court sua sponte, at any time.” Id.Federal district courts lack jurisdiction to engage in
appellate review of state court judgments. See Dist. of Columbia
Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 482 (1983); Rooker
v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). The
constitutional issues presented in the plaintiffs’ action are
inextricably intertwined with the Chancery Court’s order appointing
Benson as Vinson’s conservator. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’
action constituted a request that the district court review a state
court decision. See United States v. Shepherd, 23 F.3d 923, 924
2
(5th Cir. 1994). The district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’
complaint is therefore affirmed on the ground of lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. See Sojourner T v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30
(5th Cir. 1992) (court of appeals may affirm district court’s
judgment on any basis supported by the record).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in requiring
the plaintiffs to obtain prior permission before filing an action
in the district court. Gelabert v. Lynaugh, 894 F.2d 746, 747-48
(1990). A district court may enjoin future filings in order to
protect its jurisdiction and control its docket. Farguson v. MBank
Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 360 (5th Cir. 1986). Pro se litigants
are not immune from the imposition of sanctions if they "harass
others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and
abuse already overloaded court dockets." Id. at 359.
This is the plaintiffs’ second appeal from a district court
dismissal of claims challenging an order issued in Mississippi
Chancery Court Cause No. 96-0078/96-1110. See Vinson v. Colom, No.
99-60825 (5th Cir. June 16, 2000) (unpublished). The plaintiffs
are warned that it is within this court's power under Fed. R. App.
P. 38 to impose sanctions upon parties who take frivolous appeals.
See Vinson v. Heckmann, 940 F.2d 114, 116 (5th Cir. 1991).
The plaintiffs are also warned that it is inappropriate to
include derogatory personal comments about a district judge in
3
documents filed with this court. Such comments, even by pro se
plaintiffs, invite the striking of the documents in which they are
contained. See Theriault v. Silber, 574 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1978).
AFFIRMED; SANCTIONS WARNINGS ISSUED.
4