Vinson v. Colom

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60825
Conference Calendar
HARRY W. VINSON; BRAD VINSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
DOROTHY WINSTON COLOM,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:99-CV-62-B-D
--------------------
June 16, 2000
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Harry W. and Brad Vinson (“the Vinsons”) appeal the district
court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of their claims
against Dorothy Winston Colom (“Colom”), a Mississippi Chancery
Court judge. The Vinsons’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleged
that Colom had violated the Vinsons’ constitutional rights by
issuing a preliminary injunction order in a Chancery-Court case.
“Federal courts, both trial and appellate, have a continuing
obligation to examine the basis for their jurisdiction.” MCG,
Inc. v. Great W. Energy Corp., 896 F.2d 170, 173 (5th Cir. 1990).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-60825
-2-
“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).
“Constitutional questions arising in state proceedings are to be
resolved by the state courts.” Liedtke v. State Bar of Tex., 18
F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994). The constitutional issues
presented in the Vinsons’ § 1983 action are inextricably
intertwined with the Chancery Court’s preliminary injunction
order. Accordingly, the Vinsons’ action constituted a request
that the district court review a state-court decision. See
United States v. Shepherd, 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th Cir. 1994).
In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the district
court is 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).
AFFIRMED.