From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holst v. Oregon

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 24, 2007
235 F. App'x 685 (9th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 06-35378.

Submitted August 13, 2007.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed August 24, 2007.

Melvin Hoist, Gresham, OR, pro se.

Erin C. Lagesen, Esq., Attorney General Office of Oregon, Salem, OR, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; Garr M. King, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-00113-GMK.

Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Melvin Hoist appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action alleging that the state of Oregon violated his constitutional right to a jury trial. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal based on Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Quillin v. Oregon, 127 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (dismissal based on Eleventh Amendment immunity), and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Hoist's action amounted to a forbidden "de facto appeal" of a state court judgment and raised a constitutional claim that was "inextricably intertwined" with that state court judgment. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163-65; see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005) ( Rooker-Feldman bars "state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced" from asking district courts to review and reject those judgments).

The district court also properly concluded that the Eleventh Amendment bars Hoist's action. See Micomonaco v. State of Wash., 45 F.3d 316, 319 (9th Cir. 1995) ("[T]he Eleventh Amendment bars a citizen from bringing suit against his own state in federal court.").

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Holst v. Oregon

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 24, 2007
235 F. App'x 685 (9th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

Holst v. Oregon

Case Details

Full title:Melvin HOLST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of OREGON, Defendant-Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 24, 2007

Citations

235 F. App'x 685 (9th Cir. 2007)

Citing Cases

Holst v. Oregon

Melvin HOLST, petitioner, v. OREGON.Case below, 235 Fed.Appx. 685. Petition for writ of certiorari to the…