Opinion ID: 694920
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Declaratory Judgment Act Claims

Text: 8 Parsons' complaint asserts claims under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2201-02. According to Parsons, the district court erred in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We reject the argument. 9 It is fundamental that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2201-02 simply create remedies; they are not independent bases for federal jurisdiction. California Dump Truck Owners Ass'n v. Associated Gen. Contractors, 562 F.2d 607, 609 n. 1 (9th Cir.1977); see also Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667 (1950). 10 Federal district courts do not have jurisdiction over direct challenges to final decisions of state courts or claims whose resolution are inextricably intertwined with a state court's decision. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); see also Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir.1986). This doctrine applies even when the challenge to the state court decision involves alleged deprivations of due process and equal protection. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 484-86. In such cases, state appeals procedures must be exhausted, whereupon a dissatisfied litigant may seek review by the United States Supreme Court. Worldwide Church of God, 805 F.2d at 891. 11 Parsons' complaint asserts that her public defender and various judges and officials of the State of Idaho conspired to bring false criminal charges against her. Because Parsons' claims necessarily implicate issues addressed in the state-court proceedings, they are inextricably intertwined with the state court judgment. The district court could not evaluate the claims without conducting an impermissible review of the state court's determination. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 476. The district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Parsons' claims under the Declaratory Judgment Act.