Opinion
No. 08-55525.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed July 20, 2010.
Armando Gomez. lone, CA, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No 3:08-cv-00013-DMSBLM.
Before: ALARCON, LEAVY, and GRABER. Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Armando Gomez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action challenging a state court child custody decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Noel r. Halt, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the action because it is a "forbidden de facto appeal" of a state court decision, and raises constitutional claims that are "inextricably intertwined" with that prior state court decision. Id. at 1158; see also Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 900 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, "[i]t is immaterial that [the plaintiff] frames his federal complaint as a constitutional challenge to the state court[s] decision[], rather than as a direct appeal of [that decision]").