N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ATTHEW

SC OTT W HITE, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. STEVEN L. DOB RESC U; STATE OF NEVADA; R O B ER T S. B EC KETT; HARDESTY; DOUGLAS; C HER R Y; SEVENTH JUDIC IAL DISTR IC T C OUR T; FIFTH JUDIC IAL DISTR IC T C OUR T, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-16149 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-00680-M M DW GC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da M iranda M . Du, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 11, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED JUN 10 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : M c KEOW N a nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s a nd LEFKOW , *** Se nior Distric t Judge . M atthe w Sc ott W

hite , a Ne va da sta te prisone r, a

p pe a ls pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e n t dismissing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging viola tions of the First Am e ndm e nt a nd the R e ligious La

nd Use and Institutiona

liz e d Pe rsons Ac t (“ RLUIPA” ) in c onne c tion with Judge Dobre s c u’ s de n ia l of W

hite ’ s pe tition to c h ange his na

m e for re ligious re a sons. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo. Re snic k v . Hay e s , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th C ir. 2000) (dism i ssa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A); Barre n v . Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th C ir. 1998) (orde r) (dism issa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e )(2)). W e m a y a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by

the re c ord, J

ohnson v . Riv e rside

He althc areSy

s., LP , 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th C ir. 2008), a nd we a ffirm

the dism issa l but re ve rse the distric t c o urt’ s de c ision to do so with pre judic e . Dism issa l of W

hite ’ s a c tion wa s prope r be c a use his c la im s a

m ounte d to a forbidde n “ de fa c t o a

ppe a l” of unfa

vora ble judgm e nts in Ne v a da

sta t e c ourt a nd are b arre d by

the R ook e r–Fe ldman doc trine . Se e Elw o od v . Dre sc he r , 456 F.3d 943, 948 (9th C ir. 2006) (e xpla ining tha t Rook e r –Fe l dman provide s a jurisdic tiona l ground for dismissa l a

n d fe de ra l c ourts m

u st ge ne ra lly

a ddre ss jurisdic tiona l issue s

*** The Honora

ble Joa n H. Le fkow, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa t ion. 2first); N

oe l v . Hall , 341 F.3d 1148, 1163–65 (9th C ir. 2003) (the R ook e r–Fe ldman doc trine a pplie s whe re a

fe de ra l pla intiff c om

p la ins of a

le ga l wrong a lle ge dly c om m itte d by the sta te c o urt, a nd se e ks re lie f from

the judgm e n t of tha

t c ourt). B e c a use we a ffirm

the dism issa l on theba sis of the Rook e r–Fe ldman doc trine , we tre at the dism issa l a s one without pre judic e . Se e K

e lly v . Fle e tw ood Ente rs., Inc . , 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th C ir. 2004) (dismissa ls for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion should be without pre

judic e ). W e the re fore a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of W

hite ’ s c la im s, but re ve rse and re m and so thedistric t c ourt c an e nte r an orde r dism issing W hite ’ s pe tition without pre judic e . No c osts will be

a sse sse d on a

ppe a l. AFFIRM ED AS TO DISM ISSAL OF C LAIM S; RE VER SED AND REM A NDED AS TO DISM ISSAL W ITH PRE JUDIC E.

3W

hite v . Dobre sc u , 14-16149 Joa n H. Le fkow, Distric t Judge , c onc urring. I a gre e with them a

jority but would indic ate to the a ppe lla nt tha t he m ay se e k le ave to a

m e nd his c om

pla int in fe de ra l c ourt by

ple a ding tha

t Ne va da ’ s sta tutory re stric tion on na

m e c ha nge s for prisone rs viola

te s RLUIPA, whic h would c re ate subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion a nd would not be

a de fa c to a

ppe a l from

the sta te c ourt judgm e nt. 

# FIL ED JUN 10 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS