Rowley v. Wilson , 200 F. App'x 274 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 4, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30189
Summary Calendar
HORACE P. ROWLEY, III; WENDY K. ROWLEY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
MERCEDES ARZU WILSON; H. HUGH WILSON; RODNEY JACK
STRAIN, JR., Sheriff & Ex-Officio Tax Collector of St. Tammany Parish;
CATHERINE C. SPADARO; JAMES J. SPADARO,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana
(USDC No. 2:03-CV-3307)
_________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances
1
We reverse the district court’s dismissal of the appellants’ lawsuit for the
following reasons:
1. The district court correctly held that it was proper for it to abstain
from hearing appellants’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief under
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). The
state proceedings were ongoing, the proceedings implicate important state
interests relating to state taxes and liens, and there was an adequate
opportunity in the state proceedings for appellants to raise their constitutional
challenges. See Allen v. La. State. Bd. of Dentistry, 835 F.2d 100, 103 (5th
Cir. 1988).
2. The district court also correctly held that Younger abstention does not
apply to claims for monetary damages. Id. at 104. However, the district
court erred in applying the abstention doctrine provided in Colorado River
Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S. Ct. 1236,
47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976) to appellants’ claims for monetary damages. For the
Colorado River abstention doctrine to apply, the state and federal lawsuit
must be parallel. Diamond Offshore Co. v. A&B Builders, Inc., 302 F.3d
set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
531, 540 (5th Cir. 2002). This means the suits must have the same parties
and the same issues. Id. That is not the case here. While some of the parties
and issues are the same, some are not. The federal lawsuit has additional
defendants, specifically Sheriff Strain and the Spadaros, with additional
claims against these defendants.
3. Appellees argue that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies here.
However, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine now applies only in the “limited
circumstances” where “the losing party in state court filed suit in federal court
after the state proceedings ended, complaining of an injury caused by the
state-court judgment and seeking review and rejection of that judgment.”
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291, 125 S.
Ct. 1517, 1526, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005). Exxon Mobil tells us when a state
court judgment is sufficiently final for operation of the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine: when “the state proceedings [have] ended.” Id. At the time
appellants filed this federal lawsuit, their state proceedings had not ended.
The state case was on appeal to the Louisiana appellate court. Accordingly,
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is inapplicable.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
3