Summary Calendar CHARLOTTE MANOR v. TEXAS SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, RONALD WALKER, Chief Justice, ROBERT TRAPP, Judge,…

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
August 11, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-40529
Summary Calendar
CHARLOTTE MANOR
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
TEXAS SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, RONALD WALKER, Chief Justice,
ROBERT TRAPP, Judge, 411th Judicial Court, San Jacinto County,
LINDA GOOD, East Texas Legal Aid
Defendants - Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:03-CV-32
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charlotte Manor appeals the dismissal of her 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to
FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).
Because Manor’s alleged deprivation of constitutional rights
arose solely from the state-court divorce and child custody
proceeding and was “inextricably interwined” with the state

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-40529
-2-
court’s judgment, the district court did not err in dismissing it
in part for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Davis v.
Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Musslewhite
v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 946 (5th Cir. 1994). Because
the state judges were entitled to absolute immunity from
liability and Manor did not allege that they acted in the absence
of all jurisdiction, the district court did not err in dismissing
Manor’s complaint in part for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. See Malina v. Gonzales, 994 F.2d 1121,
1124 (5th Cir. 1993). Manor’s appeal is without arguable merit
and, therefore, is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); see 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Manor’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Manor’s
motion for an extraordinary writ that the “agreed decree of
divorce” be voided and held unenforceable is also DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --