From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Edwards v. Martinez

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 23, 2018
No. 17-16544 (9th Cir. Feb. 23, 2018)

Opinion

No. 17-16544

02-23-2018

BILLY L. EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUSANA MARTINEZ, Governor, State of New Mexico; et al., Defendants-Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00149-RCC MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Billy L. Edwards appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging federal claims related to a property dispute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Edwards sought review of a prior state court judgment. See id. (the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars de facto appeals of a state court decision); see also Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008) (a de facto appeal is one in which "the adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling" (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). A dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004), and thus should be without prejudice, Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm the district court's dismissal, but remand to the district court with instructions to amend the judgment to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Edwards' contentions on behalf of other named plaintiffs because Edwards, who is appearing pro se, may not represent other entities. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions to amend the judgment.


Summaries of

Edwards v. Martinez

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 23, 2018
No. 17-16544 (9th Cir. Feb. 23, 2018)
Case details for

Edwards v. Martinez

Case Details

Full title:BILLY L. EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUSANA MARTINEZ, Governor, State…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Feb 23, 2018

Citations

No. 17-16544 (9th Cir. Feb. 23, 2018)

Citing Cases

Rosenblum v. U.S. Bank

In Kelly, there was no subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was not met. Id. The…

Punchall v. Grisham

See Punchard v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt, No. CV-17-0148-JGZ (D. Ariz. July 26, 2017), aff'd, Punchard v.…