Case Name: CHIH HSIN TENG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-24
Citations: 265 F. App'x 581
Docket Number: No. 07-56086
Parties: CHIH HSIN TENG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 265
Pages: 581–581

Head Matter:
CHIH HSIN TENG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 07-56086.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008 .
Filed Jan. 24, 2008.
Chih Hsin Teng, Fullerton, CA, pro se.
Glenn L. Savard, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Chih Hsin Teng appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action alleging that the California Department of Motor Vehicles improperly revoked his driver's license eleven years ago. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Spurlock v. FBI, 69 F.3d 1010, 1015 (9th Cir.1995). We review de novo a district court's dismissal based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Teng's federal action requires the district court to review and reverse numerous state court decisions refusing to reinstate Teng's driver's license or award him relief. See Doe & Assocs. Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1029-30 (9th Cir.2001) (no federal subject matter jurisdiction "[wjhere the district court must hold that the state court was wrong in order to find in favor of the plaintiff[.]").
Teng's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.