Case Name: Karl FALER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary Katherine LINDLEY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-08-22
Citations: 42 F. App'x 996
Docket Number: No. 01-36095
Parties: Karl FALER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Mary Katherine LINDLEY, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 42
Pages: 996–997

Head Matter:
Karl FALER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Mary Katherine LINDLEY, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 01-36095.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 12, 2002 .
Decided Aug. 22, 2002.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Faler’s request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Karl Faler appeals pro se the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of his action alleging he was wrongly denied a jury trial, and his ex-wife's former attorney engaged in misconduct, during prior state court divorce proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Arrington v. Wong, 237 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir.2001), and affirm.
The district court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Faler's action amounts to nothing more than an impermissible collateral attack on his prior, state court divorce proceeding. See Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291-92 (9th Cir.1995).
Faler's motions for sanctions against his ex-wife's former attorney and for default judgment are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.