Case Name: Vikas SAREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Reema SAREEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 356 F. App'x 977
Docket Number: No. 08-17395
Parties: Vikas SAREEN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Reema SAREEN; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 356
Pages: 977–977

Head Matter:
Vikas SAREEN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Reema SAREEN; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 08-17395.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
Vikas Sareen, Fresh Meadows, NY, pro se.
Richard Charles Miadich, Olson Hagel & Fishburn LLP, Jeri Lynn Pappone, Lon-gyear O’Dea and Lavra, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously Ends this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Vikas Sareen, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his child custody proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Vikas Sareen's action because it is a "forbidden de facto appeal" of a state court decision, and raises constitutional claims that are "inextricably intertwined" with that prior state court decision. Id. at 1158; see also Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 900 n. 4 (9th Cir.2003) (explaining that under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, "[i]t is immaterial that [the plaintiff] frames his federal complaint as a constitutional challenge to the state eourt['s] decision[], rather than as a direct appeal of [that decision]").
Appellant'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.