Opinion
21-15192
05-31-2022
SAMUEL R. SPENCER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT SINCLAIR; WILLIAM STEVEN SHUMWAY; JOHN M. SINCLAIR; RANDALL R. WILSON; RUSSELL P. BALDO; SINCLAIR WILSON BALDO AND CHAMBERLAIN, The Law Firm; MICHAEL A. JACQUES; LAWRENCE E. SKIDMORE; TAMI HINDS; BRIAN WARREN; PATRICIA WARREN, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted May 17, 2022 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01266-TLN-AC
Before CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Samuel R. Spencer appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action for declaratory relief challenging two California state court judgments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the basis of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Spencer's action because it is a "forbidden de facto appeal" of two state court judgments that were unfavorable to Spencer, and because Spencer did not allege facts sufficient to show how any alleged extrinsic fraud affected the state court judgments. See Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the extrinsic fraud exception).
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).