Case Name: Freddie FLETCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sir Arthur GILBERT, Deceased, sued as the Arthur and Rosalind Gilbert 1982 Trust; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-28
Citations: 262 F. App'x 791
Docket Number: No. 06-56825
Parties: Freddie FLETCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sir Arthur GILBERT, Deceased, sued as the Arthur and Rosalind Gilbert 1982 Trust; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 262
Pages: 791–791

Head Matter:
Freddie FLETCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sir Arthur GILBERT, Deceased, sued as the Arthur and Rosalind Gilbert 1982 Trust; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-56825.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.
Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
Freddie Fletcher, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Freddie Fletcher, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging on constitutional grounds a final judgment rendered against him by the California Supreme Court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's jurisdictional dismissal based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
Fletcher contends that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine should not apply because the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and rendered a void judgment. We disagree. See Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038, 1043 n. 6 (9th Cir.2005) ("Rooker-Feldman applies where the plaintiff in federal court claims that the state court did not have jurisdiction to render a judgment."). The district court properly concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Fletcher's action because it is a "forbidden de facto appeal from a judicial decision of a state court," and raises constitutional claims that are "inextricably intertwined" with that prior state court decision. Noel, 341 F.3d. at 1158.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.