United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 10, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
_____________________ Clerk
No. 03-20931
Summary Calendar
_____________________
In the Matter of: JOHN HATTON,
Debtor
JOHN HATTON,
Appellant,
versus
DANIEL D GRIGAR,
Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,
District Court Cause No. H-03-CV-2111
_________________________________________________________________
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.1
PRADO, Circuit Judge.
This appeal arises from the district court’s dismissal of
Appellant’s appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s order lifting an
automatic stay. The Bankruptcy Court’s order allows Appellee to
pursue enforcement of a state court injunction. The injunction
1
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, this 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
enforces Appellee’s right to use a public road over Appellant’s
property.
Appellant’s arguments on appeal focus on a state-court
contempt order and a state court-of-appeals sanctions order
regarding a state-court judgment, but the only appealable issue
before this Court is whether the district court abused its
discretion in dismissing Appellant’s appeal of the Bankruptcy
Court’s order lifting the bankruptcy stay. Appellant, however,
failed to address this issue. Ordinarily when an appellant fails
to address a potential error in the district court’s analysis it
is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the judgment.2
Because Appellant failed to raise the one issue appealable to
this Court, Appellant waived that issue.
To the extent Appellant complains about the state court
actions, a federal court is precluded, under the Rooker/Feldman
doctrine, from appellate review of state-court determinations.3
2
See Brinkman v. Dallas County Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d. 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987).
3
See Weekly v. Morrow, 204 F.3d. 613, 615 (5th Cir. 2000).
In Weekly, this Court explained that:
[F]ederal district courts, as courts of original
jurisdiction, lack appellate jurisdiction to review,
modify, or nullify final orders of state courts. If a
state trial court errs the judgment is not void, it is
to be reviewed and corrected by the appropriate state
appellate court. Thereafter, recourse at the federal
level is limited solely to an application for a writ of
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
2
In light of this well-settled principle, Appellee seeks sanctions
under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Rule 38 provides for sanctions if the court of appeals
determines an appeal is frivolous, so long as the party to be
sanctioned receives notice and a reasonable opportunity to
respond.4 This appeal is frivolous because Appellant waived the
only appealable issue and because a federal court has no
jurisdiction to consider what Appellant seeks to challenge.
Appellant received notice by virtue of Appellee’s motion, but
failed to respond despite adequate time. Appellant has
“unjustifiably consumed the limited resources of the judicial
system and this Court,”5 and “needlessly put [Appellee] to the
expense of defending [his] judgment.”6 For these reasons, this
Court GRANTS Appellee’s motion for sanctions and AWARDS double
costs to Appellee.
The record indicates the district court properly dismissed
Appellant’s appeal under Bankruptcy Rule 8006 because Appellant
Weekly, 204 F.3d. at 615 (quotations and citations omitted).
4
“If a court of appeals determines that an appeal is
frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from
the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just
damages and single or double costs to the appellee.” FED. R. APP.
P. 38.
5
Pillsbury Co. v. Midland Enter., Inc., 904 F.2d 317, 318
(5th Cir. 1990).
6
Id.
3
failed to comply with the rule. Consequently, this Court AFFIRMS
the district court’s dismissal order.
AFFIRMED.
4