Birnbaum v. Ray, 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 99-11180
Summary Calendar
_________________
UDO BIRNBAUM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RICHARD RAY; ET AL.,
Defendants,
RICHARD RAY; TOMMY W. WALLACE; JAMES B. ZIMMERMAN;
RICHARD DAVIS; PAT MCDOWELL, Judge; LESLIE P. DIXON;
BETTY DAVIS; WILLIAM JONES; BECKY K. MALONE,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:99-CV-696-R)
_________________________________________________________________
July 28, 2000
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Udo Birnbaum challenges, pro se, the dismissal, for failure to
state a claim under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), of his Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) complaint .

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
Birnbaum’s RICO action arises out of a state-court action
brought against him by defendant William Jones. Birnbaum’s action
is an attempt to attack collaterally the validity of an adverse
state-court judgment. Federal courts lack jurisdiction to engage
in appellate review of state-court determinations. District of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 482
(1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923);
Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994).
“When issues raised in a federal court are inextricably intertwined
with a state judgment and the court is in essence being called upon
to review the state-court decision, the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction”. Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir.
1995)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Because Birnbaum’s claims arise solely from the state-court
litigation and are “inextricably intertwined” with the state
court’s judgment, the district court judgment is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --