KULICK v. LEISURE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION INC (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Robert J. Kulick appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging civil rights violations arising from state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine because Kulick’s action is a “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment, and he raises claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 782 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rooker–Feldman doctrine barred claim that was “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s decision); see Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker–Feldman doctrine barred plaintiff’s claim because alleged legal injuries arose from the “state court’s purportedly erroneous judgment” and the relief sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”).

AFFIRMED.