Case Name: Kirk L. WHITCOMBE; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Larry HENAK, Husband; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-16
Citations: 234 F. App'x 816
Docket Number: No. 06-16488
Parties: Kirk L. WHITCOMBE; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Larry HENAK, Husband; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 816–817

Head Matter:
Kirk L. WHITCOMBE; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Larry HENAK, Husband; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 06-16488.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 9, 2007.
Filed July 16, 2007.
Kirk L. Whitcombe, Anthem, AZ, pro se.
Susan L. Whitcombe, Anthem, AZ, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kirk and Susan Whitcombe appeal pro se the dismissal of their action seeking to set aside orders issued by Washington state courts in three cases arising out of a boundary dispute between the Whitcombes and their neighbors, Larry and Susan He-nak. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
United States district courts lack the authority to review final judgments of state courts acting judicially; such review may only be had in the United States Supreme Court. See Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine thus bars cases such as the Whitcombes': "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005). Dismissal was proper.
The district court also properly denied the 'Whitcombes' numerous motions seeking reconsideration, vacatur of the judgment, and leave to refile.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.