Case ID: f-appx_471/html/0691-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nikiforos P. KALFOUNTZOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; California Public Employees Retirement System, Calpers, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-15402.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 28, 2012.
    
    Filed March 12, 2012.
    Nikiforos P. Kalfountzos, Sacramento, CA, pro se.
    Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nikiforos P. Kalfountzos appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action challenging the California Public Employees’ Retirement System’s denial of his application for retirement benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kalfountzos’s action sua sponte as barred by the Roolcer-Feldman doctrine because the action is a “forbidden de facto appeal” of a state court judgment and raises constitutional claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court judgment. Noel, 341 F.3d at 1158; see also Elwood v. Drescher, 456 F.3d 943, 948 (9th Cir.2006) (“[Fjederal courts must generally address jurisdictional issues first.”).

Kalfountzos’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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