IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-51060
Conference Calendar
LESROY JOSEPH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROY HOLIDAY, Manager - Wallburg State Bank;
CHRIS R. HERNDON, Investigator,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-99-CV-344-SS
--------------------
June 13, 2001
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lesroy Joseph, Texas inmate # 831595, proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, appeals the district court’s summary-judgment
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Joseph’s motions to
strike Appellee Herndon’s computer disk and for en banc hearing
are DENIED. Joseph’s motion for reconsideration is construed as
a motion for leave to file an out-of-time reply brief and is
GRANTED.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-51060
-2-
We review the district court’s grant of a summary judgment
motion de novo, using the same criteria used by the district
court. Fraire v. City of Arlington, 957 F.2d 1268, 1273 (5th
Cir. 1992). We may affirm the district court’s judgment on
alternative grounds. See Johnson v. McCotter, 803 F.2d 830, 834
(5th Cir. 1986) (citing Bickford v. Int’l Speedway Corp., 654
F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir. 1981)).
“The Rooker-Feldman** doctrine holds that federal district
courts lack jurisdiction to entertain collateral attacks on state
judgments.” United States v. Shepherd, 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th
Cir. 1994) (footnote omitted). If the district court must
examine issues that are “inextricably intertwined with a state
judgment, the [district] court is in essence being called upon to
review the state-court decision, and the originality of the
district court’s jurisdiction precludes such a review.” Id.
(internal quotations omitted). Under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, Joseph may not attempt to invalidate the state court
judgment in the forfeiture proceeding in federal court. See id.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See
Johnson, 803 F.2d at 834.
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS TO STRIKE DISK AND FOR EN BANC HEARING
DENIED; MOTION TO FILE OUT-OF-TIME REPLY BRIEF GRANTED.
**
Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923);
Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476,
482 (1983).