Opinion
No. 18-55354
06-18-2019
MICHAEL HUCUL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-01531-JLS-DHB MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Michael Hucul appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging a violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act ("RFPA"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hucul's action as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it is a de facto appeal of prior state court decisions and raises claims that are inextricably intertwined with state court decisions. See id. at 1163-65 (Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars de facto appeals of a state court decision and claims "inextricably intertwined" with the state court decision); see also Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008) (a de facto appeal is one in which "the adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling or require the district court to interpret the application of state laws or procedural rules" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted))
Appellee Griffin's motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 13) is denied.
AFFIRMED.