Lamarr v. Oregon, Acting by and Through, Baker County Circuit Court

Full title: Randall Dean LAMARR, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. State of OREGON, acting by…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 27, 2005

151 F. App'x 512 (9th Cir. 2005)

Opinion

Submitted September 12, 2005. ^*

* 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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)

Page 513.

Randall Dean Lamarr, Portland, OR, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; Ancer L. Haggerty, District Judge, Presiding.

Before REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Randall Dean Lamarr, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against County Court employees alleging that defendants failed to act on his application to proceed in forma pauperis, resulting in the dismissal of his state court action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed this action pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the gravamen of Lamarr's complaint requires federal review of the state court ruling against him. See id. at 898 (federal district courts are not authorized to review state court judgments). Because Lamarr's constitutional claims are "inextricably intertwined" with the substance of the state court decision, review of such claims is also barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See id.

AFFIRMED.