Armando Gomez v. San Diego Family Court
Armando GOMEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN DIEGO FAMILY COURT, Defendant-Appellee
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Dana M. Sabraw (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Arthur L. Alarcon (author), Susan Graber, Edward Leavy
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMANDO GOMEZ, No. 08-55525 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00013-DMS- BLM v. SAN DIEGO FAMILY COURT, MEMORANDUM * Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 29, 2010 ** Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Armando Gomez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action challenging a state court child custody decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The district court properly concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the action because it is a “forbidden de facto appeal” of a state court decision, and raises constitutional claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with that prior state court decision. Id. at 1158; see also Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 900 n.4 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that under the Rooker- Feldman doctrine, “[i]t is immaterial that [the plaintiff] frames his federal complaint as a constitutional challenge to the state court[’s] decision[], rather than as a direct appeal of [that decision]”).
AFFIRMED.
2 08-55525