	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

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