Ferguson v. Starrett

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-60451
Conference Calendar
RONALD JASON FERGUSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KEITH STARRETT,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:96-CV-190-L-H
- - - - - - - - - -
October 24, 1996
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronald Jason Ferguson (Mississippi prisoner # 82238) appeals
the district court's dismissal of his suit as barred by the
doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. Because Ferguson sought
injunctive relief rather than monetary damages, the district
court erred by employing the doctrine of absolute judicial
immunity. Holloway v. Walker, 765 F.2d 517, 525 (5th Cir.),
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-60451
- 2 -
cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1037 (1985). Nevertheless, reversal is
unnecessary as the district court lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction over the case. See Bickford v. Int'l Speedway
Corp., 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir. 1981) (reversal is
inappropriate if ruling of district court can be affirmed on any
grounds, regardless of whether those grounds were used by
district court).
Under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine, federal district courts
lack subject-matter jurisdiction to review state court judgments.
United States v. Shepherd, 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th Cir. 1994);
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). If
the issues raised in the federal district court are "inextricably
intertwined" with a state judgment, the court is "in essence
being called upon to review the state-court decision," and the
court lacks jurisdiction to conduct such a review. Shepherd, 23
F.3d at 924 (internal quotations and citations omitted). A
plaintiff cannot circumvent this jurisdictional limitation by
framing his complaint in the form of a civil rights action under
§ 1983. Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 271 (1994).
Ferguson sought federal review of the state-court decision
to rescind his participation in Mississippi's shock-probation
program. Under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine, the district court
lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims. See Liedtke, 18 F.3d at
No. 96-60451
- 3 -
317-18. Because the district court lacked jurisdiction, the
appeal is without merit.
AFFIRMED.