Stephens v. 4th Judicial District Court

PER CURIAM: * Lloyd T. Stephens appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action against a state court and three state court judges for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Roolcer/Feldman doctrine, 1 Stephens challenges the actions of the state court judges in state court proceedings relating to a long-running custo *862 dial dispute involving his severely disabled adult son. See In re Interdiction of Stephens, 930 So.2d 1222 (La.Ct.App.2006). He argues that the district court erred by denying his motion for appointment of counsel. Because Stephens’s action clearly was barred by the Rooker/Feldman doctrine, his case did not present exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. See Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir.1987). Stephens’s appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). Stephens moves for appointment of counsel on appeal, for oral argument, and for media to be present at oral argument. Those motions are denied. This is at least Stephens’s second attempt in federal court to overturn the adverse judgments of the Louisiana courts in his custodial dispute. See Stephens v. 4th Judicial Court, No. 9:01-CV-00193 (E.D.Tex. Oct. 10, 2001). Both of his federal cases were dismissed pursuant to the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. Moreover, his most recent substantive custodial claims have been thoroughly considered by the Louisiana state courts. See In re Interdiction of Stephens, 930 So.2d at 1224-29. Stephens is warned that frivolous appeals in the future will invite the imposition of sanctions. APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. Footnotes [*] Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5tii Cir R. 47.5.4. [1] See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923).