Weekly v. Morrow

Revised March 9, 2000

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________________

No. 99-30289
__________________________

EDWARD WEEKLY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHARON M. MORROW,
Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana

______________________________________________
March 2, 2000
Before Judges FARRIS*, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

WIENER, Circuit Judge:

In this discovery dispute arising out of a worker’s

compensation claim, Plaintiff-Appellant Edward Weekly appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his suit to enjoin Defendant-Appellee

Sharon Morrow from seeking the issuance of a contempt citation

against him for failing to produce Social Security documents. The

district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over Weekly’s suit

on grounds of Younger abstention.1 As we hold that under the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine the district court did not have

*
Circuit Judge of the 9th Circuit, sitting by designation.
1
See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
jurisdiction over the instant case, we affirm that court’s judgment

dismissing Weekly’s suit without reaching the issue of Younger

abstention.

I
Facts and Proceedings

Edward Weekly filed a disputed worker’s compensation claim

with the Louisiana Office of Workers’ Compensation in December of

1997. Sharon Morrow is the administrative hearing officer assigned

to Weekly’s case.

Under Louisiana law, employers are entitled to an offset in

worker’s compensation payments for certain types of Social Security

benefits received by an injured employee. For this reason,

Weekly’s employer sought discovery of Weekly’s Social Security

records. Weekly objected to this request, asserting that he had a

privacy interest in his Social Security records and that he could

not, consistent with federal law, be compelled to disclose them.

Rejecting Weekly’s arguments on the authority of the Louisiana

Supreme Court decision in Theodore v. Holi Temporary Service,

Inc.,2 Judge Morrow ordered Weekly to sign a form consenting to the

disclosure of his records.

Weekly appealed Judge Morrow’s ruling to the Louisiana Court

of Appeal, Third Circuit, which found that there was no error in

Judge Morrow’s decision. Weekly then applied to the Supreme Court

of Louisiana for a remedial or supervisory writ, but that court

2
706 So.2d 441 (1997)
denied Weekly’s request. Undaunted, Weekly filed a petition for a

Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which

denied the petition.

In January of 1999, Weekly filed an action in federal district

court seeking to enjoin Judge Morrow from taking any steps to

enforce her disclosure order. As Louisiana law requires

administrative hearing officers to apply to a state district court

to obtain the issuance of a contempt citation, Weekly sought to

enjoin Judge Morrow from applying for such a citation. The

district court dismissed Weekly’s claim on grounds of Younger

abstention, and this appeal followed.3

II
Analysis

The only issue raised by the parties on appeal is the

propriety of the district court’s decision to abstain from deciding

the instant case pursuant to the abstention doctrine announced by

the Supreme Court in Younger v. Harris.4 Federal courts do not

abstain on Younger grounds because they lack jurisdiction; rather,

Younger abstention “reflects a court’s prudential decision not to

exercise [equity] jurisdiction which it in fact possesses.”5 Prior

to oral argument in this court, we requested the parties to submit

3
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
4
See id.
5
Benavidez v. Eu, 34 F.3d 825, 829 (9th Cir. 1994); New
Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of the City of New Orleans,
491 U.S. 350, 358-59 (1989).
supplemental memoranda addressing whether —— abstention issues

aside —— we may exercise jurisdiction over this case. Federal

courts may examine the basis of their jurisdiction sua sponte, even

on appeal.6

The jurisdiction of the federal courts is established by the

Constitution and by congressional statutes. Article III of the

Constitution delineates the outermost boundary of potential federal

court jurisdiction; actual jurisdiction is then conferred by

statute.7 Article III provides that “[t]he judicial Power shall

extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this

Constitution, and the Laws of the United States....”8 Weekly’s

lawsuit is framed as a case arising under the laws of the United

States, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 1306(a), which governs the

disclosure of information in the possession of the Social Security

Administration. As such, Weekly’s lawsuit falls within the

boundaries of the potential jurisdiction of the federal courts as

established by Article III of the Constitution.

No statute exists, however, granting federal district courts

jurisdiction to hear appeals from state court decisions. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1257 provides that “[f]inal judgments or decrees rendered by the

highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be

reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari....” No

6
Copling v. Container Store, Inc., 174 F.3d 590, 594 (5th Cir.
1999).
7
Palmore v. United States, 411 U.S. 389, 401-02 (1973).
8
U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2.
parallel provision exists similarly granting appellate jurisdiction

over state court decisions to the inferior federal courts. The

Supreme Court has definitively established, in what has become

known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, that “federal district

courts, as courts of original jurisdiction, lack appellate

jurisdiction to review, modify, or nullify final orders of state

courts.”9 “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.”10

Appellant Weekly has already pressed his claim at each level

of the Louisiana state court system. He appealed the final

determination of the Louisiana state courts to the United States

Supreme Court, in which his petition for a Writ of Certiorari was

denied. Weekly now turns to the lower federal courts seeking to

enjoin enforcement of the Louisiana state courts’ decisions. But

the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear Weekly’s

claim, even to the preliminary stage of considering prudential

abstention under Younger. Subject only to express statutory

jurisdictional grants, federal district courts are courts of

9
Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir.
1994) (citations omitted) (referencing Rooker v. Fidelity Trust
Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals
v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)).
10
Id; see also Carbonell v. Louisiana Dept. of Health & Human
Resources, 772 F.2d 185, 188-89 (5th Cir. 1985).
original jurisdiction. They cannot sit as appellate courts in

review of state court judgments. As that is precisely what Weekly

asked the district court to do, dismissal of his claim was proper.

Thus, we do not reach the question whether Younger abstention is

proper in the instant case; rather, for lack of jurisdiction, we

affirm the district court’s judgment of dismissal.

AFFIRMED