Court Opinion

ID: 9785055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:01:35.384066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:04.255204
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 30 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARL THOMPSON,                                  No. 22-35892

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00075-SLG-KFR

 v.

MARJORIE K. ALLARD, Judge; Chief                MEMORANDUM*
Judge of the Alaska Court of Appeals;
TRACEY WOLLENBERG, Judge; Judge of
the Alaska Court of Appeals; TIMOTHY W.
TERRELL, Judge; Judge Sitting by
Designation on the Alaska Court of Appeals,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Alaska
                   Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Alaska state prisoner Carl Thompson appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims arising out of

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes,

213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

       The district court properly dismissed Thompson’s action because it was a

forbidden de facto appeal of a prior state court judgment. See Noel v. Hall, 341

F.3d 1148, 1163 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine).

       The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without leave to

amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home

Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard for review

and explaining that leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be

futile).

       AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    22-35892