Bernice DeRouen v. Falls County Sheriff's Dept, et, No. 11-50550 (5th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 11-50550 Document: 00511759821 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-50550 Summary Calendar February 15, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk BERNICE MARIE DEROUEN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FALLS COUNTY SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT; RICKY SCAMAN, Deputy Sheriff, in his individual and Official Capacities, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:11-CV-138 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HAYNES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appellant Bernice Marie DeRouen ( DeRouen ) attempts to challenge the district court s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of her § 1983 suit against a deputy sheriff and the Sheriff s Department of Falls County. The district court dismissed because she has already pursued and lost exactly the same claim in Texas state courts. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 11-50550 Document: 00511759821 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2012 No. 11-50550 1. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, she may not continue to litigate the claims by seeking review of the state courts decisions in federal court. The district court correctly dismissed on this basis.1 2. Moreover, DeRouen s initial brief on appeal utterly fails to address the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and she has therefore waived any argument based on that doctrine. Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Dep. Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The appeal fails to raise an issue of arguable merits and is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2. 1 Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 412, 44 S. Ct. 149 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct. 1303 (1983). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.