Case Name: Michael SMITH, individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Angela A. Smith, a Minor Child, Plaintiff -Appellant, v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-22
Citations: 135 F. App'x 966
Docket Number: No. 04-55697; D.C. No. CV-03-00746-RJT
Parties: Michael SMITH, individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Angela A. Smith, a Minor Child, Plaintiff -Appellant, v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 135
Pages: 966–967

Head Matter:
Michael SMITH, individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Angela A. Smith, a Minor Child, Plaintiff -Appellant, v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-55697.
D.C. No. CV-03-00746-RJT.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2005.
Decided June 22, 2005.
Michael Smith, Desert Hot Springs, CA, pro se.
Bruce E. Disenhouse, Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs, Riverside, CA, Christopher D. Lockwood, Arias Lockwood & Gray, San Bernadino, CA, for Defendants — Appellees.
Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael Smith appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that various state and county officials deprived him of his constitutional rights when they removed his daughter from his home following allegations of child abuse. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003). We vacate and remand.
The gravamen of Smith's federal action is that the county officials who removed Smith's minor daughter, Angela, from his home, and Judge Block, who presided over Smith's state action, violated his federal constitutional rights. In light of an intervening Supreme Court decision, Smith's action is not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because his complaint does not allege that the state court judgment was erroneous. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 1521-22, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005) (confining application of the Rook-er-Feldman doctrine to state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments and seeking review and rejection of those judgments).
Smith's pending motions are denied.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.