United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 17, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-11088
Conference Calendar
TERRY JAMES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BILL RHEA; JOSEPH B. MORRIS; SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS; NICKI
MATHISON,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:02-CV-2627-N
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Terry James appeals from the district court’s dismissal of
his civil-rights lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
He has also filed a motion seeking appointment of counsel on
appeal. Because he has failed to show “exceptional
circumstances” warranting the appointment of counsel on appeal,
that motion is DENIED. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209,
213 (5th Cir. 1982).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-11088
-2-
We review a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction de novo. See Williams v. Dallas Area Rapid
Transit, 242 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir. 2001). Because James’s
complaint is inextricably intertwined with certain state court
judgments, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review his
complaint. See United States v. Shepherd, 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th
Cir. 1994); see also 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). Accordingly, the district court’s
judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED.