Case Name: Shawn Karl MOONEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis Alexander BOLI, IV, aka Michael Boli; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-24
Citations: 265 F. App'x 567
Docket Number: No. 07-16229
Parties: Shawn Karl MOONEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis Alexander BOLI, IV, aka Michael Boli; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 265
Pages: 567–567

Head Matter:
Shawn Karl MOONEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis Alexander BOLI, IV, aka Michael Boli; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-16229.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008 .
Filed Jan. 24, 2008.
Shawn Karl Mooney, San Mateo, CA, pro se.
Law Office, Oakland, CA, Bradley A. Solomon, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, Louis Alexander Boli, IV, Esq. for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Shawn Karl Mooney appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a conspiracy to violate his due process rights in connection with an action that he brought in state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Mooney'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.
Mooney'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.