Case ID: f-appx_699/html/0668-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Farzana SHEIKH, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lesliey D. HOLLAND, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Court; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-15692
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    Filed October 20, 2017
    Farzana Sheikh, M.D., Pro Se
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Farzana Sheikh, M.D., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with her state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Sheikh’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because her claims constituted a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing application of Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred plaintiffs claim because alleged legal injuries arose from the “state court’s purportedly erroneous judgment” and the relief sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.