Estate of Apolinar v. Household Finance Corp.

Full title: Lucia M. APOLINAR, ESTATE OF, an incapacitated woman, Plaintiff, v…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Apr 15, 2003

61 F. App'x 433 (9th Cir. 2003)

Opinion

61 Fed.Appx. 433 (9th Cir. 2003) Lucia M. APOLINAR, ESTATE OF, an incapacitated woman, Plaintiff, and Christopher Apolinar; et al., Plaintiffs--Appellants, v. HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORP., a Delaware corporation fka Valley Bank of Arizona; et al., Defendants--Appellees, and State of Arizona, Real-party-in-interest--Appellee. No. 02-15899. D.C. No. CV-01-01366-FJM. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. April 15, 2003

Submitted April 7, 2003. ^*

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding.

Before RYMER, KLEINFELD, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Brothers Christopher and Timothy Apolinar appeal pro se the district court's judgment dismissing their action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over all claims in which the Apolinars sought to reverse or enjoin actions by the state court or state court employees, or claimed civil rights violations as a result of state court proceedings. See Doe & Assocs. Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1029-30 (9th Cir.2001) (discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine).

The district court properly concluded that the conclusory allegations in the complaint failed to state actionable claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. See Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir.1997). The district court's August 15, 2001 order denying the Apolinars' motion for a temporary restraining order did not grant these claims.

Because the district court properly dismissed the complaint, it properly denied as moot plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

Page 434.

We reject the Apolinars' remaining contentions.

AFFIRMED.