Case Name: Armando GOMEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN DIEGO FAMILY COURT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-20
Citations: 388 F. App'x 685
Docket Number: No. 08-55525
Parties: Armando GOMEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN DIEGO FAMILY COURT, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 388
Pages: 685–685

Head Matter:
Armando GOMEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN DIEGO FAMILY COURT, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-55525.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 20, 2010.
Armando Gomez, lone, CA, pro se.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Armando Gomez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action challenging a state court child custody decision. 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 the 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 fedei'al complaint as a constitutional challenge to the state court['s] decision!], rather than as a direct appeal of [that decision]").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.