Case Name: John D. BUMPHUS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAZELTREE APARTMENTS, aka Phoenix Hazeltree LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-19
Citations: 63 F. App'x 382
Docket Number: No. 02-17007
Parties: John D. BUMPHUS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAZELTREE APARTMENTS, aka Phoenix Hazeltree LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 63
Pages: 382–383

Head Matter:
John D. BUMPHUS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAZELTREE APARTMENTS, aka Phoenix Hazeltree LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-17007.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 2003.
Decided May 19, 2003.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and GRABER, 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 D. Bumphus appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing his civil rights action, which alleged racial discrimination in housing. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Gilligan v. Jamco, 108 F.3d 246, 248 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bumphus's Fair Housing Act ("FHA") claim because Bumphus failed to allege a discriminatory housing practice. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604, 3605, 3606 & 3617; cf. Gilligan, 108 F.3d at 250 (requiring complaint to allege statutory elements of an FHA claim to state adequate claim for relief).
The district court properly dismissed Bumphus's claim, which alleged a conspiracy that resulted in his illegal eviction, because the claim effectively seeks review of a final, state court decision. See Fontana Empire Center, LLC v. City of Fontana, 307 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir.2002) (federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review final, state court judgments).
Bumphus's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.