Case ID: f-appx_599/html/0643-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Benjamin FREEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-35570.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2015.
    
    Filed March 24, 2015.
    John Benjamin Freeman, Aple Valley, WA, pro se.
    Janine Elizabeth Joly, King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Seattle, WA, Gary C. Bergan, Thomas Whittington Bergan Studebaker Inc. P.S., Issaquah, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

John Benjamin Freeman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action alleging extrinsic fraud in connection with prior state court litigation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal, Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Freeman’s action under the Rooker-Feld-mam doctrine because Freeman’s claims based on extrinsic fraud have been raised and rejected in a prior state court action and this action, therefore, amounts to a de facto appeal of that state court judgment. See Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A, 525 F.3d 855, 858-60 (9th Cir.2008) (defining a “de facto appeal” under the Rooker-F eld-man doctrine, and explaining that the doctrine bars a claim of extrinsic fraud if the alleged fraud has been separately litigated in a state action to vacate the purportedly erroneous judgment).

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