Case Name: John V. DOMMISSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janet NAPOLITANO, Individual Capacity Only; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-29
Citations: 340 F. App'x 384
Docket Number: No. 07-15470
Parties: John V. DOMMISSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janet NAPOLITANO, Individual Capacity Only; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 340
Pages: 384–384

Head Matter:
John V. DOMMISSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janet NAPOLITANO, Individual Capacity Only; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-15470.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2009.
Filed July 29, 2009.
John V. Dommisse, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Michael H. Hinson, AGAZ — Office of the Arizona Attorney General (Tucson), Liability Management Section, Tucson, AZ, for Janet Napolitano, Mark Nanney, Miriam Anand, P. Philip Seheerer.
Patrick Stanley, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, Phonix, AZ, for William A. Norcross, Joseph Scherger, Peter Boal, Sydney Westphal.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
John V. Dommisse appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights. 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 Dommisse'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 court['s] decision[ ], rather than as a direct appeal of [that decision]").
Dommisse's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appi'opriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.