Case ID: f-appx_356/html/0977-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Vikas SAREEN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Reema SAREEN; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 08-17395.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
    Vikas Sareen, Fresh Meadows, NY, pro se.
    Richard Charles Miadich, Olson Hagel & Fishburn LLP, Jeri Lynn Pappone, Lon-gyear O’Dea and Lavra, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously Ends this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vikas Sareen, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his child custody proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Vikas Sareen’s action because it is a “forbidden de facto appeal” of a state court decision, and raises constitutional claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with that prior state court decision. Id. at 1158; see also Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 900 n. 4 (9th Cir.2003) (explaining that under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, “[i]t is immaterial that [the plaintiff] frames his federal complaint as a constitutional challenge to the state eourt[’s] decision[], rather than as a direct appeal of [that decision]”).

Appellant’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.