Restitution Revival v. Waco Indep Sch Dist

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 28, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-50729
Summary Calendar
RESTITUTION REVIVAL CHURCH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WACO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:04-CV-40
--------------------
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Restitution Revival Church (“Restitution Revival”) appeals
the dismissal of its 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against Waco
Independent School District (“WISD”), asserting violations of the
First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as a violation
of the Texas Religious Freedom Act arising out of WISD’s
acquisition through state condemnation proceedings of three
tracts of land adjacent to and owned by Restitution Revival.
WISD asserts that dismissal was proper, renewing its argument

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-50729
-2-
** See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923)
and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S.
462 (1983).
that Restitution Revival’s claims are not ripe and are barred by
res judicata.
Although neither party addresses the issue, we find that
Restitution Revival’s lawsuit, by which it seeks to collaterally
attack the state-court judgment in the condemnation proceedings,
is barred by the Rooker-Feldman** doctrine. See Liedtke v. State
Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994); see also Mosley
v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Restitution
Revival’s proper remedy was to seek certiorari from the Supreme
Court after the Texas Supreme Court denied review in the
condemnation proceedings, not file suit in federal district
court. See Liedtke, 18 F.3d at 317. The district court’s
dismissal of the lawsuit is AFFIRMED. See Doody v. Ameriquest
Mortgage Co., 242 F.3d 286, 289 (5th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --