Woosley v. Adoption Alliance , 79 F. App'x 672 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 3, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Charles R. Fulbruge III
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk
No. 02-51304
PAUL DAVID WOOSLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE ADOPTION ALLIANCE; CAROL R. HABERMAN,
Judge, 45th District Court; BEXAR COUNTY 225TH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT; ALMA L. LOPEZ, Justice,
Fourth Court of Appeals District,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas
(USDC No. SA-02-CV-372-FB)
_______________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Without reaching the other grounds for dismissal, we agree with the district court
that this action is barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, because appellant is
*
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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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.
attempting to overturn the state court judgments denying his requests to vacate the decree
of adoption and decree of termination. Those judgments are not void for lack of
jurisdiction so as to fall within an exception to the doctrine. The Supreme Court has held
that “a United States District Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state
court in judicial proceedings.” D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482
(1983). When the federal “court is in essence being called upon to review the state-court
decision, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to conduct such a review.” Davis v.
Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). We find no
recognized exception or limitation on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applicable to this
case. Even if Woosley’s complaint is characterized as a due process challenge to the
procedures employed by the state court, the suit in federal court is nevertheless barred.
See Liedke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
2