Hunter v. City of Houston ( 1996 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-20324
Conference Calendar
RICHARD HUNTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF HOUSTON, REDMAN, Officer,
UNKNOWN OFFICER,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CA H 96-291
- - - - - - - - - -
October 23, 1996
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Richard Hunter, Florida prisoner #210660, appeals the
district court’s judgment dismissing his pro se, in forma
pauperis, civil rights action as time-barred. Hunter argues that
the action is not time-barred because he was not aware that his
property was being held as evidence in a criminal proceeding
until his sentencing on July 8, 1994, and that the limitations
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-20324
- 2 -
period was tolled from the time of his arrest until his trial and
sentencing because he could take no action to recover the
property.
We do not address this argument because Hunter’s challenge
actually concerns the state forfeiture proceeding. The
Rooker-Feldman** doctrine precludes federal-court relitigation of
any claim that is "inextricably intertwined" with a state-court
judgment. Howell v. Supreme Court of Texas, 885 F.2d 308, 312
(5th Cir. 1989). Hunter may not circumvent this rule by casting
his complaint in the form of a civil rights action. Liedtke v.
State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
115 S. Ct. 271 (1994). Accordingly, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED on the ground that it lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction to consider Hunter’s claims. See Sojourner T v.
Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992) (court may affirm
judgment on any basis supported by the record), cert. denied, 507
U.S. 972 (1993).
AFFIRMED.
**
See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923)
and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S.
462 (1983).