Case ID: f-appx_616/html/0310-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Howard Robert HOFELICH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barbara LACY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-16118.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 9, 2015.
    Howard Hofelich, Kailua Kona, HI, pro se.
    
      Bernadette Chock, Kailua-Kona, HI, pro se.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Howard Hofelich appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims concerning his property seized pursuant to a state court writ of execution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hofelich’s action under the Rooker-Feld-man doctrine because the action is a de facto appeal of the state court’s writ of execution. See id. at 1163-65 (Rooker-Feldman bars de facto appeals of a state court decision and constitutional claims “inextricably intertwined” with the state court decision).

The district court properly denied Hofe-lich’s motions for default judgment because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

All pending motions are denied.

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