Jones v. The State of Texas

               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT




                           No. 97-20327
                       Conference Calendar



JOHNNIE JONES; HARVELLA JONES,

                                    Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                    Defendant-Appellee.


                        - - - - - - - - - -
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
                       USDC No. H-96-CV-1621
                        - - - - - - - - - -

                        February 11, 1998
Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Johnnie and Harvella Jones request permission to proceed in

forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s

dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against the State of

Texas.   The Joneses contend that the district court did not lack

subject-matter jurisdiction to consider their § 1983 claims.




     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
                            No. 97-20327
                                - 2 -

     The Joneses’ § 1983 claims are “inextricably intertwined”

with a state judgment, and the district court was “in essence

being called upon to review the state-court decision.”      See

United States v. Shepherd, 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th Cir. 1994).

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).

     Furthermore, the Joneses’ civil rights lawsuit against the

State of Texas is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.     The Supreme

Court has consistently held that the Eleventh Amendment confers

absolute immunity on an unconsenting state from suits brought in

federal court by the state's own citizens.     Puerto Rico Aqueduct

and Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144

(1993).

     The Joneses have failed to show that they will present a

nonfrivolous issue on appeal.     See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d

562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982).   Accordingly, permission to proceed IFP

is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED.     See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

     MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.