IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40022
Summary Calendar
ROBERT E. PINE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MARTY KEVIN BRUMFIELD ET AL.,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. G-95-CV-42
- - - - - - - - - -
August 26, 1996
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert E. Pine appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
civil rights suit for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed
de novo the district court’s judgment, the record, and the briefs
and find no error in the district court’s holding that Judge
David Christian and Assistant District Attorneys Arnold Davy
Davis and Brian K. Bricker are absolutely immune from suit.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-40022
- 2 -
Pine’s due process and Fourth Amendment challenges are
“inextricably intertwined” with his state court conviction for
cruelty to animals and the civil forfieture of a colt. See Pine
(Approximately 15 Horses and 2 Head of Cattle) v. State, 921
S.W.2d 866 (Tex. Ct. App. 1996), writ applied for (Jul. 18,
1996). Pine is essentially calling upon the federal courts to
review the validity of the state-court decisions regarding his
conviction and the forfeiture. Under the Rooker-Feldman**
doctrine, "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.), cert. denied, 115 S.
Ct. 271 (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)(citations omitted).
“The casting of a complaint in the form of a civil rights action
cannot circumvent this rule.” Liedtke, 18 F.3d at 317.
We find no reversible error in the dismissal of the
defendants and affirm the judgment.
AFFIRMED.
**
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust, 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Dist. of
Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).