Summary Calendar RASHAY REASONER v. Housing Authority of the City of Teague

1 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
1
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 10, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 06-50121
Summary Calendar
____________________
RASHAY REASONER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF TEAGUE,
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas
__________________
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Appellant Rashay Reasoner appeals the dismissal of her Fair
Housing Act claims against the Housing Authority of the City of
Teague, Texas. Reasoner leased an apartment from the Housing
Authority, and in January 2005, the Housing Authority informed
Reasoner that she would be required to vacate the premises. After

-- 1 of 3 --

2 The jurisdiction of the Texas Justice Court is subject to
several limits, including, inter alia, only those civil
matters in which the amount in controversy is $5,000 or less.
See TEX. GOV. CODE § 27.031. Moreover, the res judicata effect
of a judgment of a Justice Court is limited by statute. See
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 31.004, 31.005; Brown v.
Henderson, 941 S.W.2d 190, 192 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996,
no writ).
2
receiving the notice to vacate, Reasoner initiated suit in
federal district court, alleging that her eviction was based on
discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
After Reasoner’s suit was filed, the Housing Authority
initiated eviction proceedings in Texas Justice Court.2 After a
short trial, a jury found in favor of the Housing Authority, and
the court entered judgment in its favor. Following that judgment,
the Housing Authority moved for dismissal of Reasoner’s federal
suit, invoking both the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and res judicata.
The district court concluded that Reasoner’s claims were barred
by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and dismissed the suit. The court
did not address the application of res judicata.
Reasoner argues that the district court’s application of the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine is in error, relying on the Supreme
Court’s recent decision restricting the scope of the doctrine in
Exxon Mobil v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005).
The Housing Authority concedes on appeal that the Exxon Mobil
decision precludes the application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine

-- 2 of 3 --

3
in this case, but argues that this court should affirm the
dismissal based on res judicata. The district court, however, did
not address this argument, and we decline to do so in the first
instance. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED, and the
case REMANDED for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --