From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fulton v. Texas

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Feb 13, 2007
217 F. App'x 371 (5th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 05-11383 Conference Calendar.

February 13, 2007.

Kendrick Jermaine Fulton, Forrest City, AR, pro se.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, USDC No. 2:05-CV-265.

Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.


Kendrick Jermaine Fulton, federal prisoner #30080-177, appeals from the district court's order dismissing his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A. The district court concluded that Fulton's constitutional challenges to the state-court civil forfeiture proceeding in which Fulton's Chevrolet Blazer was forfeited to the State of Texas was barred by the Rooker/Feldman doctrine.

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).

Fulton was the losing party in a state-court action, and he filed suit in federal court after the state proceedings ended. His federal action concerns an injury "caused by the state-court judgment and [effectively] seek[s] review and rejection of that judgment." See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291-92, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005). As such, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Fulton's complaint. Richard v. Hoechst Celanese Chem. Group, Inc., 355 F.3d 345, 354 (5th Cir. 2003).

The appeal is without arguable merit, is frivolous, and is therefore dismissed. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The district court's dismissal of Fulton's § 1983 complaint and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous count as strikes under the three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Fulton is cautioned that if he accumulates a third strike under § 1915(g), he will not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.


Summaries of

Fulton v. Texas

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Feb 13, 2007
217 F. App'x 371 (5th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

Fulton v. Texas

Case Details

Full title:Kendrick Jermaine FULTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of TEXAS; City of…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Feb 13, 2007

Citations

217 F. App'x 371 (5th Cir. 2007)

Citing Cases

Windfield v. Hughey

Here, Plaintiff's complaint "stripped to essentials, is an attack on the judgment of the state [court]."…

Johnson v. Stocks

Further, the judgment in Johnson, 5:22-cv-0296, dismissed Johnson's claims “for lack of subject-matter…