Case ID: f-appx_471/html/0699-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harold FORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IDAHO STATE BAR; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-35861.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 28, 2012.
    
    Filed March 12, 2012.
    Harold Ford, Boise, ID, pro se.
    Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Harold Ford appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging Idaho state bar decisions resolving his claims against a former attorney for misconduct and reimbursement of attorney’s fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ford’s action as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the action is a “forbidden de facto appeal” of state bar decisions, and raises constitutional claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with those decisions. Noel, 341 F.3d at 1158; Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir.2003) (concluding that the district court lacked jurisdiction where the plaintiff “essentially asked the federal court to review the state court’s denial in a judicial proceeding, and to afford him the same individual remedy he was denied in state court” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)).

Ford’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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