Case Name: Samuel ROSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Beatrice NELSON, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-30
Citations: 623 F. App'x 498
Docket Number: No. 15-56179
Parties: Samuel ROSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Beatrice NELSON, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 498–499

Head Matter:
Samuel ROSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Beatrice NELSON, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-56179.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
Filed Nov. 30, 2015.
Samuel Rosen, Oceanside, CA, pro se.
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Samuel Rosen appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a constitutional violation arising from a state court's dismissal of his defamation action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003) (dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Rosen's action because it is a "forbidden de facto appeal" of the state court's order granting defendant Nelson's anti-SLAPP motion to strike and raises claims that are "inextricably intertwined" with the order striking Rosen's state court complaint. See Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 777, 779 (9th Cir.2012) (the Rooker-Feldman doctrine "bars a district court from exercising jurisdiction not only over an action explicitly styled as a direct appeal, but also over the 'de facto equivalent' of such an appeal," and explaining when claims are inextricably intertwined (citation omitted)).
Rosen's motion for judicial notice, filed on September 3,2015, is denied.
Rosen's motion for appointment of counsel, filed on September 17, 2015, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.