NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NORMAN HORSLEY, an individual, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

WILLIAM WARDWELL, Individually and 

as Trustee of the Shirley Packer Trust, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 23-35127 

D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00217-BLW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 5, 2024**

Portland, Oregon

Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and BRESS and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Norman Horsley, a beneficiary of the Shirley Packer Trust, appeals the 

district court’s order dismissing his suit against William Wardwell, a courtappointed trustee. Horsley seeks a declaration voiding state court orders relating to 

* 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).

FILED

FEB 8 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

the administration of the Trust, and he alleges that Wardwell breached fiduciary 

duties in his capacities as a trustee and an attorney. The district court dismissed 

Horsley’s claims as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine1and claim preclusion. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Rooker-Feldman and 

under claim preclusion. Benavidez v. County of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1141 

(9th Cir. 2021); Save Bull Trout v. Williams, 51 F.4th 1101, 1105–06 (9th Cir. 

2022), as amended. We may affirm “on any ground raised below and fairly 

supported by the record.” Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung, 710 F.3d 1020, 

1030 (9th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted).

The district court correctly concluded that Horsley’s claim for declaratory 

relief was barred by Rooker-Feldman. In his verified complaint, Horsley asks for a 

declaration that “all orders and judgments relating to substantive administration 

and determination of Trust dispute and issues be declared void and rescinded . . . .” 

But “[u]nder Rooker-Feldman, a federal district court is without subject matter 

jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the judgment of a state court.” Benavidez, 993 

F.3d at 1142 (quoting Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 896 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

Horsley’s challenge to state court orders as legally erroneous—and his pursuit of a 

1 The doctrine’s name derives from two cases: Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 

(1923), and D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
3 

declaration voiding and rescinding them—is precisely the kind of appeal RookerFeldman prohibits.

Horsley also alleges two breach of fiduciary duty claims: one related to 

Wardwell’s actions as trustee, and the other related to Wardwell’s actions as an 

attorney. The district court concluded that the trustee-based claim was barred by

Rooker-Feldman, and that the attorney-based claim was barred by claim 

preclusion. We conclude that Rooker-Feldman bars our consideration of both 

claims.

An October 2019 state court order states that “[a]ll potential claims by 

Beneficiaries have been fully arbitrated or released,” and further provides that 

Wardwell “shall be fully and finally released and discharged as Trustee” and “shall 

be released and discharged from any and all liabilities arising in connection with 

the performance of [his] duties.” A January 2020 order issued by the same state 

court provides that “Horsley is enjoined and restrained from filing, seeking, or 

pursuing (or any person or entity from assisting him) any arbitration against the 

Trustee of the Shirley Packer Trust.” 

Horsley has now brought in federal court trustee and attorney-based claims

against Wardwell, but he asks that we direct those claims to arbitration after 

vacating the state court orders enjoining Horsley from pursuing further arbitration 

proceedings. Under these circumstances, Horsley’s request for relief is premised 
4 

on unwinding the adverse state court decisions. He is therefore effectively asking 

us to review and reject the state court decisions precluding him from pursuing 

arbitration, contrary to Rooker-Feldman. See Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482 n.16. 

Because Horsley challenges those state court decisions as legally erroneous and 

seeks to bring claims barred by those decisions, his claims are squarely prohibited 

under Rooker-Feldman.

AFFIRMED.