Opinion
No. 18-56400
08-26-2019
NHUONG VAN NGUYEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JACKSON LUCKY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 5:18-cv-01452-JGB-KK MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Nhuong Van Nguyen appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action arising out of his prior state court divorce proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Nguyen's action against defendant Judge Lucky and the Riverside County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Nguyen's action is a "forbidden de facto appeal." Id. at 1163 ("It is a forbidden de facto appeal under Rooker-Feldman when the plaintiff in federal district court complains of a legal wrong allegedly committed by the state court, and seeks relief from the judgment of that court."); see also Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 782 (9th Cir. 2012) ("To determine whether an action functions as a de facto appeal, [courts] pay close attention to the relief sought by the federal-court plaintiff." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Contrary to Nguyen's contention that he has alleged "fraud upon the court," the district court properly concluded that Nguyen did not allege facts sufficient to show that an adverse party committed an extrinsic fraud on the state court. See Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2004) (defining extrinsic fraud, and recognizing that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply if extrinsic fraud prevented a party from presenting his or her claim in state court).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing defendant Miller because Nguyen voluntarily moved to dismiss Miller under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). See Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982) (setting forth standard of review); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) (explaining that an "action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request . . . by court order, on terms that the court considers proper").
Nguyen's contention that Federal Rule Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) provides federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action is unpersuasive.
Nguyen's motion to vacate the judgment (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied.
AFFIRMED.