Armant, et al v. West, et al

*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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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.
Page 1
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 17, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-30218
Summary Calendar
WENDELL ARMANT and DR. CAROL THOMPSON-ARMANT
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
JOSEPH WEST, ET AL
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana
(USDC No. 2:04-cv-2336)
_________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*1
Reviewing the record de novo, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Armant’s
suit for the following reasons:

-- 1 of 2 --

Page 2
1. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine establishes that lower federal courts lack
jurisdiction to review state court judgments when the constitutional claims are
“inextricably intertwined” with a challenged state court judgment. Richard v.
Hoechst Celanese Chem. Group, Inc., 355 F.3d 345, 350 (5th Cir. 2003).
Unsuccessful parties in a state court cannot reconstitute their cases as Section 1983
claims to sidestep this rule. Liedtke v. The State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 318
(5th Cir. 1994).
2. In their Section 1983 suit, the Armants hope a federal court will find that the
appellees engaged in illegal conduct in their effort to enforce Judge Giarrusso’s
judgment. However, it is impossible to reach this conclusion without first
establishing that Judge Giarrusso’s judgment was deficient. That issue has already
been addressed by the Louisiana’s Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court. The bottom
line is that these two issues are inextricably intertwined.
Affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --