Court Opinion

ID: 9964744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-30 18:00:56.578309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:41.398760
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 30 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOEL BECK,                                      No. 23-15203

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00225-MMD-CLB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, DBA
Mr. Cooper; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
as Trustee Securitized Trust Structured;
FIRST AMERICAN TRUSTEE
SERVICING SOLUTIONS, LLC,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Nevada
                    Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before:      CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Joel Beck appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his

action alleging a due process claim arising from state court proceedings. We have

      *
             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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341

F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Beck’s action as barred by the Rooker-

Feldman doctrine because it amounted to a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior

state court judgment and raised a constitutional claim that was “inextricably

intertwined” with that judgment. See id. at 1163-65 (discussing proper application

of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Benavidez v. County of San Diego, 993

F.3d 1134, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine

applies even where the challenge to the state court decision involves federal

constitutional issues); Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 860 (9th Cir.

2008) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars a claim of extrinsic fraud if the alleged fraud

has been separately litigated in a state action).

      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 requests are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    23-15203