Case ID: f-appx_390/html/0712-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hiram ASH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roger BOREN, Justice of the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-55055.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 2, 2010.
    Robert Guevara, Esq., South Gate, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Michael Strickroth, Esq., Howard, Strickroth & Parker, LLP, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hiram Ash appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations concerning state court appellate decisions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, and may affirm on any proper ground supported by the record. Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. Locke, 568 F.3d 757, 764 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Ash’s action is a “forbidden de facto appeal” of certain transfer and consolidation decisions by the California Court of Appeal, Second District that are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s judgment. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th Cir.2003); see also Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898-900 (9th Cir.2003) (Rooker-Feldman barred plaintiffs due process claim where his request to vacate the state appellate court’s opinion and to- have his appeal reassigned to different justices was inextricably intertwined with the state court judgment whose “undoing” he Sought).

We grant Ash’s motion to supplement the record. Ash’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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