Pittman v. 22nd Judicial District Ct

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: June 19, 2023
• Docket: 23-30027
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-30027 Document: 00516791552 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2023

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

FILED No. 23-30027 June 19, 2023 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Alka Pittman, on behalf of minor children T.C. and A.C. (biological Indigenous children) As Members of Tchou Tchouma Tchoupitoulas Nation,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

22nd Judicial District Court, St. Tammany Parish; Department of Revenue State of Louisiana, Office of Child Support,

Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:22-CV-2242 ______________________________

Before Duncan, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Alka A. Pittman moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal of the dismissal of her federal civil action for lack of subject matter

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-30027 Document: 00516791552 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2023

No. 23-30027

jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The district court ruled that Pittman’s lawsuit collaterally attacking a Louisiana court’s custody and child support orders was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 1 It denied Pittman IFP status, certifying that her appeal would not be taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into Pittman’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits.” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine “directs that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to entertain collateral attacks on state court judgments.” Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994). Pittman’s civil action satisfies all four conditions for applying Rooker-Feldman. See Burciaga v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 871 F.3d 380, 384 (5th Cir. 2017). Although Rooker-Feldman does not bar federal court review of “independent claims” for injuries that do not “aris[e] from the [state court] judgment” itself, Truong v. Bank of Am., N.A., 717 F.3d 377, 383 (5th Cir. 2013), Pittman has not identified any such claim. Because Pittman’s appeal lacks arguable merit, her motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24.

_____________________ 1 Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).