Case Name: Peter BARCLAY, Staff Sergeant, US Air Force, Discharged and as Family, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF OREGON; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-22
Citations: 672 F. App'x 682
Docket Number: No. 16-35013
Parties: Peter BARCLAY, Staff Sergeant, US Air Force, Discharged and as Family, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF OREGON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 672
Pages: 682–682

Head Matter:
Peter BARCLAY, Staff Sergeant, US Air Force, Discharged and as Family, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF OREGON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-35013
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 22, 2016
Peter Barclay, Pro Se
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, 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
Peter Barclay appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising from an unfavorable judgment by the Oregon state court in a prior family law action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both the dismissal of an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998), and under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Barclay's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it amounted to a forbidden "de facto appeal" of a state court judgment and raised claims that were "inextricably intertwined" with that state court judgment. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163-65. We reject as without merit Barclay's contentions regarding the applicability of exceptions to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.