Opinion
3:01-CV-1166-R.
September 21, 2001
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the District Court in implementation thereof, this cause has been referred to the United States magistrate judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge, as evidenced by his signature thereto, are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Parties: Plaintiff is presently confined at the Connally Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice — Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID) in Kenedy, Texas. Defendant is West End Cab Company. The Court has not issued process in this case.
Statement of Case: Plaintiff seeks to bring an appeal in this court from an order filed by the Texas Supreme Court on May 31, 2001, denying his motion for rehearing in Holleman v. West End Cab Co., Cause No. 00-1232.
Findings and Conclusions: By virtue of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal courts lack jurisdiction to entertain collateral attacks on state judgments. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923);District of Columbia. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); see also Weekly v. Morrow, 204 F.3d 613, 615 (5th cir. 2000); Hale v. Harney, 786 F.2d 688, 690-91 (5th Cir. 1986); Howell v. State Bar of Texas, 710 F.2d 1075, 1077 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 950, 104 S.Ct. 2152, 80 L.Ed.2d 538 (1984). The United States Supreme Court is the only federal court permitted to review state court decisions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) ("Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari . . . where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States[.]"). Rooker-Feldman is a jurisdictional doctrine, which this court can raise sua sponte.
Stripped to its core, Plaintiff's claim is a collateral attack on a final state court decision. Essentially, Plaintiff is seeking a reversal of the Texas Supreme Court's decision denying his motion for rehearing. Despite the due process claims raised in the complaint and in Plaintiff's "Motion for Relief of Judgment," filed on September 19, 2001, this action is an attempt to bypass the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The claim of federal constitutional violations, if any, is "inextricably intertwined" with the state court judgment and, therefore, Plaintiff's recourse is by writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. "Judicial errors committed in state courts are for correction in the state court systems . . . such errors are no business of ours." Hale, 786 F.2d at 691.
RECOMMENDATION:
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
A copy of this recommendation shall be mailed to Petitioner.
NOTICE
In the event that you wish to object to this recommendation, you are hereby notified that you must file your written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of this recommendation. Pursuant to Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), a party's failure to file written objections to these proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within such ten-day period may bar a de novo determination by the district judge of any finding of fact or conclusion of law and shall bar such party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected to proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the district court.