McCormick v. Dempster ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 9, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-20637
Conference Calendar
SANDRA PATRICIA MCCORMICK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GEORGIA DEMPSTER; LANNA SHADWICK; PAMELA
S. HALLIBURTON; CYNTHIA J. CLINE; COLIN
KELLY MASON, JR.; KIMBERLY MASON; PATRICIA
REIFSLAGER, also known as Patsy Gallant
Reifslager; MICHAEL REIFSLAGER; BEN IRMINI;
JOHN W. HOWELL; POLINA STRUG; CINDY KILBORN;
KEITH NYGREN; KAREN H. MENSCHING; JOSEPH
P. CONDON,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-02-CV-2866
--------------------
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sandra Patricia McCormick, proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which she
asserted that her due process rights were violated by a state
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-20637
-2-
court’s entry of a child custody order and another state court’s
enforcement of that order. McCormick moves to supplement the
record with copies of the state court records and asks this court
to compel the defendants to provide the relevant records. These
motions are DENIED.
McCormick’s federal allegations can be construed as requests
for review of the state court orders or as issues that are
“inextricably intertwined” with those orders. Pursuant to the
Rooker/Feldman** doctrine, the federal district court lacked
jurisdiction to consider McCormick’s collateral attack on a state
judgment. See United States v. Shepherd, 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th
Cir. 1994); Hale v. Harney, 786 F.2d 688, 690-91 (5th Cir. 1986).
McCormick has not established that the district court erred in
dismissing her claims against the defendants. See John Corp. v.
City of Houston, 214 F.3d 573, 576 (5th Cir. 2000); Musslewhite
v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 945 (5th Cir. 1994). The
judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
**
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923);
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462(1983).