Gant v. State of Texas

Fifth Circuit

Gant v. State of Texas

123 F. App'x 622

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 23, 2005

Docket04-10757

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 123 F. App'x 622 (Gant v. State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gant v. State of Texas, 123 F. App'x 622 (5th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Eric Gant appeals the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit challenging as unconstitutional state court rulings against him. As the district court determined, Gant’s claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman ** doctrine. See Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir.1995); Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir.1994). Gant’s conclusional assertion that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply to his case because any ruling in his favor would not affect any state court rulings is patently without merit; the face *623 of his complaint sought reversal of the state court rulings and the entry of judgment in his favor in the challenged state court case.

Because the appeal raises no nonfrivolous issues, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cíe. R. 42.2. We caution Gant that the filing or prosecution of frivolous appeals will subject him to sanctions. Gant should review all pending appeals to ensure that they are not frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

**

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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Eric Gant appeals the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit challenging as unconstitutional state court rulings against him. As the district court determined, Gant’s claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman ** doctrine. See Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir.1995); Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir.1994). Gant’s conclusional assertion that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply to his case because any ruling in his favor would not affect any state court rulings is patently without merit; the face *623 of his complaint sought reversal of the state court rulings and the entry of judgment in his favor in the challenged state court case.

Because the appeal raises no nonfrivolous issues, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cíe. R. 42.2. We caution Gant that the filing or prosecution of frivolous appeals will subject him to sanctions. Gant should review all pending appeals to ensure that they are not frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

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.

**

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 F. App'x 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gant-v-state-of-texas-ca5-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack