Terry James appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his civil-rights lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. He has also filed a motion seeking appointment of counsel on appeal. Because he has failed to show “exceptional circumstances” warranting the appointment of counsel on appeal, that motion is DENIED. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 1982).

We review a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. See Williams v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 242 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir. 2001). Because James’s complaint is inextricably intertwined with certain state court judgments, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review his complaint. See United States v. Shepherd, 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th Cir. 1994); see also District of Columbia Court *779 of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED.