United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 3, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-41499
Summary Calendar
AARON FRANK COLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GREGORY W. ABBOTT, Counsel for
Respondents; THOMAS R. PHILLIPS,
Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice;
NATHAN L. HECHT; CRAIG T. ENOCH,
Texas Supreme Court Justice;
PRISCILLA R. OWEN, Texas Supreme
Court Justice; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:03-CV-339
Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Aaron Frank Cole, Texas prisoner # 722487, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) as frivolous and for failure to state a
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
claim. He contends that the district court erred in dismissing his
claims regarding the loss or destruction of his property by prison
officials. Because the state trial court was not a court of
competent jurisdiction and did not render a judgment on the merits,
Cole’s claims are not barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See
Ellis v. Amex Life Ins. Co., 211 F.3d 935, 937 (5th Cir. 2000).
However, Cole may not proceed in federal court on his property-
conversion claims because the deprivation was due to random and
unauthorized actions of state officers, and the state of Texas
provides an adequate remedy for such actions. See Sheppard v.
Louisiana Bd. of Parole, 873 F.2d 761, 763 (5th Cir. 1989); Cathey
v. Guenther, 47 F.3d 162, 164 (5th Cir. 1995). Cole’s allegations
that prison officials violated prison policy in damaging or losing
his property is insufficient to allege a constitutional violation.
Hernandez v. Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986).
Cole also asserts that the prison officials who investigated
and reviewed his grievances and the state court judges and judicial
employees who handled his state action violated his due process and
equal protection rights. Because the grievance procedure does not
affect the duration of a prisoner’s confinement, Cole cannot
establish that he has a state-created liberty interest in that
procedure. See Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31-32 (5th Cir.
1995). With respect to his equal protection claim, Cole has not
established that he was treated differently from similarly situated
2
individuals. See Mayabb v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 863, 870 (5th Cir.
1999). Cole’s challenges to the rulings and actions of the state
court are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court
judgments, and the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider
such claims. See United States v. Shepherd, 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th
Cir. 1994) (“The Rooker/Feldman doctrine holds that federal
district courts lack jurisdiction to entertain collateral attacks
on state judgments”); Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375-76 (5th
Cir. 1995).
Cole has not established that the district court erred in
dismissing his lawsuit as frivolous and for failure to state a
claim. See Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir.
1998). Consequently, the judgment is
AFFIRMED.
3