Hidalgo v. State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 31, 2025
• Docket: 24-20416
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-20416 Document: 42-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 24-20416 FILED Summary Calendar March 31, 2025 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Michael Hidalgo,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

The State of Texas,

Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CV-2098 ______________________________

Before Jones, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * In 1991, a Texas state court sentenced Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Hidalgo to eight-years imprisonment for burglary of habitation. His sentence “legally ended” on January 1, 1999. Approximately twenty-four-years later, Hidalgo filed a counseled “Writ of Error Coram Nobis” in a Harris County, Texas district court alleging he was wrongfully required to register as a sex

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-20416 Document: 42-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2025

No. 24-20416

offender in connection with his prior conviction. Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis at 2–3, State v. Hidalgo, No. 05493260101A (Tex. Dist. Ct. July 21, 2023). The state district court denied Hidalgo’s writ and his subsequent appeal was dismissed. Hidalgo v. State, No. 01-24-00209-CR, 2024 WL 1513853, at *1 (Tex. App.—Hous. [1st Dist.] Apr. 9, 2024, no pet.). Hidalgo filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court but alleges the petition was “returned erroneously . . . with instructions to file said Writ in the Court of Criminal Appeals[.]” On June 4, 2024, Hidalgo, still represented by counsel, filed a complaint 1 in a federal district court purporting to “appeal[] the decision of the Justices of the Texas Supreme Court” rejecting his petition for review. The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge who sua sponte recommended dismissing Hidalgo’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine. 2 The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation over Hidalgo’s objections and dismissed his suit without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We agree. “Under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, ‘federal district courts lack jurisdiction to entertain collateral attacks on state court judgments.’” Weaver v. Texas Cap. Bank N.A., 660 F.3d 900, 904 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Liedtke v. State Bar of Tex., 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994)). “A state court judgment is attacked for purposes of Rooker–Feldman . . . where the losing party in a state court action seeks ‘what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment.’” Id. (quoting Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005–06 (1994)). The stated purpose of Hidalgo’s _____________________ 1 Hidalgo’s complaint was titled “Petition for Review Appellant’s Appeal from the Adverse Actions of the Supreme Court of Texas in Violation of his Constitutional Rights.” 2 Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

2 Case: 24-20416 Document: 42-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/31/2025

federal complaint was to “appeal from the adverse actions of the Supreme Court of Texas” and “appeal[] the decision of the Justices of the Texas Supreme Court” in rejecting his petition for review. The federal district court correctly concluded it was without subject matter jurisdiction to entertain such a challenge. See id. AFFIRMED.