Pittman v. 22nd Judicial District Ct

Case: 23-30027 Document: 00516791552 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 23-30027 June 19, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Alka Pittman, on behalf of minor children T.C. and A.C.
(biological Indigenous children) As Members of Tchou Tchouma
Tchoupitoulas Nation,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
22nd Judicial District Court, St. Tammany Parish;
Department of Revenue State of Louisiana, Office of
Child Support,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:22-CV-2242
______________________________
Before Duncan, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Alka A. Pittman moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)
on appeal of the dismissal of her federal civil action for lack of subject matter
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30027 Document: 00516791552 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2023
No. 23-30027
jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The district court ruled that
Pittman’s lawsuit collaterally attacking a Louisiana court’s custody and child
support orders was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 1 It denied
Pittman IFP status, certifying that her appeal would not be taken in good
faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
Our inquiry into Pittman’s good faith “is limited to whether the
appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits.” Howard v. King, 707
F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine “directs that federal district courts lack
jurisdiction to entertain collateral attacks on state court judgments.” Liedtke
v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994). Pittman’s civil action
satisfies all four conditions for applying Rooker-Feldman. See Burciaga v.
Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 871 F.3d 380, 384 (5th Cir. 2017). Although
Rooker-Feldman does not bar federal court review of “independent claims”
for injuries that do not “aris[e] from the [state court] judgment” itself,
Truong v. Bank of Am., N.A., 717 F.3d 377, 383 (5th Cir. 2013), Pittman has
not identified any such claim.
Because Pittman’s appeal lacks arguable merit, her motion to proceed
IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh,
117 F.3d at 202 & n.24.
_____________________
1
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
2