Case ID: f-appx_672/html/0682-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Peter BARCLAY, Staff Sergeant, US Air Force, Discharged and as Family, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF OREGON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-35013
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 22, 2016
    Peter Barclay, Pro Se
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Peter Barclay appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising from an unfavorable judgment by the Oregon state court in a prior family law action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both the dismissal of an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998), and under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Barclay’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it amounted to a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a state court judgment and raised claims that were “inextricably intertwined” with that state court judgment. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163-65. We reject as without merit Barclay’s contentions regarding the applicability of exceptions to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

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.