Hawks v. Mattox

387 F. App'x 878

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: July 20, 2010
• Docket: 09-2316
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

JEROME A. HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

Stephen L. Hawks, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Exercising de novo review, see Kiowa Indian Tribe of Okla. v. Hoover, 150 F.3d 1163, 1165 (10th Cir.1998), we affirm.

Mr. Hawks’ dispute with the defendants, primarily the current and former Texas Attorneys General, arises out of two Texas child-support orders. In 1988, the state court issued a decree of divorce including certain child-support provisions. In 1999, the state court issued a modified child-support order amending the support provisions. Mr. Hawks contends that the Attorney General’s office did not properly apply and enforce these orders, so that he was incorrectly assessed with child-support arrearages.

Relying on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a separate lawsuit against current Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Hawks v. Abbott, 365 Fed.Appx. 124 (10th Cir.2010) (Hawks I). Mr. Hawks concedes on appeal that the claims in Hawks I and in this case are “almost identical in Subject Matter.” Aplt. Br. at 1. Because Mr. Hawks seeks to assert in this suit the same type of claims that Hawks I held to be precluded by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Appellant’s motion to file the appendix from Hawks I in this appeal is GRANTED. All other pending motions are DENIED.

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1 . See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923).