Whitman v. Lambright

── Whitman v. Lambright ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: April 14, 2026 Category: Civil Rights Case: 25-30688 Document: 27-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-30688 FILED April 14, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Bubba Jonathan Whitman, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Tony Lambright, Vernon Parish District Attorney; Larry Wallace, Director, LA Dept of Children & Family Services; Charles Bryson, Asst. Commissioner, Family Assistance & Child Support Division, TN Dept of Human Services; Scott Westerchill, in his official capacity as Judge, 30th JDC Vernon Parish; Anthony Eaves, in his official capacity as Judge, 30th JDC Vernon Parish, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:25-CV-1577 ______________________________ Before Smith, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Tony Lambright, pro se, sued various Vernon Parish officials under _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-30688 Document: 27-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2026 No. 25-30688 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Declaratory Judgment Act. He appeals the denial of his second motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The suit complains of the alleged mishandling of a domestic dispute, to-wit, error in registering a child-support order. The main question on ap- peal is whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies here to divest the federal district court of jurisdiction to entertain a collateral attack on the state-court judgment. The district court denied the injunction and TRO. In a concise but sufficiently thorough three-page Memorandum Order, issued on October 29, 2025, the court explained as follows: “Plaintiff now attempts to plead around Rooker-Feldman, arguing that he is not seeking review of a state court judg- ment but attempting ‘to halt ongoing constitutional violations by state officials.’” “[A]ll of plaintiff’s claims stem from the fact that he believes the state court erred in registering the child support order—a matter for state court review.” The district court is correct in its application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The order denying preliminary relief is AFFIRMED. 2