SMITH v. WOODS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Donna M. SMITH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Regina WOODS, Officially and Individually; Monique E. Barial, Officially and Individually; Bernadette D'Souza, Officially; Melvin C. Zeno, Officially and Individually; Chanel R. Debose, Individually; Thomas Ussin Brown, Individually; Law Office of Chanel R. Debose; Sharry I. Sandler, Individually; Law Office of Sharry I. Sandler; Gordon S. Patton, Individually, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 20-30480

Decided: July 22, 2021

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Donna M. Smith, New Orleans, LA, Pro Se. James Garrison Evans, Assistant Attorney General, Jacqueline Bordelon Wilson, Louisiana Department of Justice, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellee Monique E. Barial. Edward Winter Trapolin, Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, Christopher Thomas Whelen, Huber, Thomas & Marcelle, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees Chanel R. Debose, Thomas Ussin Brown.

Donna Smith appeals the dismissal of her claims brought under a variety of legal theories, seeking to redress alleged wrongs arising from her divorce proceedings in Louisiana state court. The district court dismissed Smith's federal claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Smith's remaining state law claims.¹ In her briefs, Smith reasserts many of the allegations in her complaint, but she fails to offer a reasoned argument for how the district court erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over her claims. Our independent assessment of the district court's ruling reveals no error in that conclusion.² We affirm.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.

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

2. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005).

Per Curiam:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law