United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 17, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-21193
Conference Calendar
RONALD X. GORDON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ANNA MARIE MADISON,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-03-CV-2960
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronald X. Gordon appeals the dismissal of his complaint as
barred by the Rooker-Feldman** doctrine. Gordon’s complaint,
which sought to appeal the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in
Madison v. Gordon, 39 S.W.3d 604 (Tex. 2001), did not raise a
cognizable federal claim because under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, federal district courts are prohibited from reviewing
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
**
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).
No. 03-21193
-2-
or nullifying final state court judgments. See Union Planters
Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Salih, 369 F.3d 457, 462 (5th Cir. 2004).
Insofar as Gordon alleges that the Texas Supreme Court’s judgment
was void for lack of jurisdiction, he must appeal that issue to
the United States Supreme Court if he desires federal review of
that ruling. See id. To the extent that Gordon’s arguments can
be liberally construed as raising a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim that
he was denied access to the courts, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not
cover claims against purely private parties, and, therefore, this
also is not a cognizable federal claim. See Richard v. Hoechst
Celanese Chem. Group, Inc., 355 F.3d 345, 352 (5th Cir. 2003).
Given that Gordon has failed to state a federal claim, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to
appoint counsel. See Castro Romero v. Becken, 256 F.3d 349,
353-54 (5th Cir. 2001).
Gordon’s appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore
dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20
(5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.