Gibson v. Long

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________ No. 98-10389 Summary Calendar _____________________ ANTHONY LIONEL GIBSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BILL LONG, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:97-CV-1384-H _________________________________________________________________ September 14, 1998 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Anthony Lionel Gibson, Texas prisoner #695684, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint with prejudice under 42 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and Gibson’s brief, and find no reversible error. Although couched in terms of civil rights violations, Gibson’s claim arises from his state court habeas proceedings. Under the Rooker-Feldman1 doctrine, he may not attempt to invalidate his * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 1 See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). state court judgment in federal court. See Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th cir. 1994). Furthermore, Gibson’s challenge to a specific state habeas proceeding fails to raise a constitutional question cognizable in federal habeas corpus proceedings. See Nichols v. Scott, 69 F.3d 1255, 1275 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Gibson’s complaint as frivolous, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. See Sojourner T v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992) (court may affirm judgment on any basis supported by the record). A F F I R M E D. 2