Court Opinion

ID: 9380614
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-20 18:00:33.646191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:26.434788
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 20 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HENDRICK LUCAS,                                 No. 21-55385

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 5:20-cv-01366-JGB-KK

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
WAMU MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH
CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-AR19
TRUST, AKA WAMU 2005-AR19; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                    Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Hendrick Lucas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of a foreclosure. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under

      *
             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).
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003).

We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Lucas’s action because the action

constitutes a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment and raises

claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment, and because Lucas

did not allege facts sufficient to show that any alleged fraud on the court affected

the state court judgments. Id. at 1163-65 (discussing proper application of the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609,

616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman barred plaintiff’s claim because the relief

sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision

was wrong and thus void”); Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th

Cir. 2004) (discussing the extrinsic fraud exception to the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine).

      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      All pending motions are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    21-55385