NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES G. KINNEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

PHILIP GUTIERREZ; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56735 

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-06168-PSG 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 18, 2017**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Charles G. Kinney appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing 

his action seeking a declaratory judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(dismissal based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Vasquez v. Los Angeles 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Kinney’s request for oral 

argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

FILED

DEC 28 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-56735 

County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal for failure to state a claim 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kinney’s claims against Presiding 

Justices Rothschild and Boren; Justices Chaney, Johnson, Ashmann-Gerst, and 

Chavez; and Judges Scheper and Alarcon, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Kinney’s claims constitute a “de facto 

appeal” of prior state court judgments, or are “inextricably intertwined” with those

judgments. Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163-65 (discussing application of the RookerFeldman doctrine); see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th 

Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred claim for injunction based on 

allegedly erroneous and “void” state court judgment because “[g]ranting the 

injunction would require the district court to determine that the state court’s 

decision was wrong and thus void”).

The district court properly dismissed Kinney’s claims against Clark, Marcus 

and Chomsky because Kinney failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible 

claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“To survive a 

motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 

true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted)); see also Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the 

Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating that the 
3 16-56735 

Declaratory Judgment Act “only creates a remedy and is not an independent basis 

for jurisdiction”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint 

without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. Cervantes v. 

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth 

standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper 

when amendment would be futile).

The magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion by issuing the related case 

order. See N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 3-12 (setting forth standard for relation of cases).

The magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion by transferring this action 

to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. See 28 

U.S.C. §§ 636 (describing magistrate judge’s authority), 1404(a) (authorizing 

transfer of action for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of 

justice); Mitchell v. Valenzuela, 791 F.3d 1166, 1168 (9th Cir. 2015) (magistrate 

judges may hear and determine non-dispositive matters); Jones v. GNC 

Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth factors 

relevant to transfer decision).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by transferring this case to 

Judge Gutierrez because this case was related to another case then-pending before 

Judge Gutierrez. See C.D. Cal. General Order No. 14-03, superseded by General 
4 16-56735 

Order No. 16-05 (Oct. 31, 2016).

We reject as unsupported by the record Kinney’s contention that Judge 

Gutierrez should have recused himself and that other judges were biased.

We do not consider Kinney’s challenges to the district court’s orders 

certifying this appeal as frivolous and severing certain claims because they are not 

supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 

1993).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Appellees’ requests for sanctions and for leave to file a motion for a 

vexatious litigant pre-filing review order against Kinney, set forth in the answering 

brief, are denied.

Appellees’ corrected motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 24) is 

granted.

AFFIRMED.