Case ID: f-appx_340/html/0384-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John V. DOMMISSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janet NAPOLITANO, Individual Capacity Only; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-15470.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 14, 2009.
    
    Filed July 29, 2009.
    John V. Dommisse, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Michael H. Hinson, AGAZ — Office of the Arizona Attorney General (Tucson), Liability Management Section, Tucson, AZ, for Janet Napolitano, Mark Nanney, Miriam Anand, P. Philip Seheerer.
    Patrick Stanley, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, Phonix, AZ, for William A. Norcross, Joseph Scherger, Peter Boal, Sydney Westphal.
    Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

John V. Dommisse appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Dommisse’s 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]”).

Dommisse’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appi'opriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.