Case ID: f-appx_82/html/0530-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard L. VAN WINKLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 03-35259.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Nov. 10, 2003.
    
    Decided Nov. 14, 2003.
    Richard L. Van Winkle, pro se, Belling-ham, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Before: KOZINSKI, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Richard L. Van Winkle appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice Van Winkle’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Van Winkle’s action as frivolous because the action sought to declare an Oregon state court divorce judgment void. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.1995); Coats v. Woods, 819 F.2d 236, 237 (9th Cir.1987) (“federal courts traditionally decline to exercise jurisdiction in domestic relations cases”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.