Opinion
21-17081
11-25-2022
JAMES CONERLY; MARILYN TILLMAN-CONERLY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JAMIE DAVENPORT; PETER K. SOUTHWORTH; KIVONNE NASH; OFFICIAL PEST PREVENTION, INC.; SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01600-KJM-KJN, Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
James Conerly and Marilyn Tillman-Conerly appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their action alleging federal claims arising from state court small claims proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' action because it is a "forbidden de facto appeal" of a state court small claims judgment and raises issues that are "inextricably intertwined" with that judgment. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting claims are "inextricably intertwined" for purposes of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine where "the relief requested in the federal action would effectively reverse the state court decision or void its ruling" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.