Jeffrey Thomas v. Laurie Zelon ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFFREY GRAY THOMAS, No. 17-55404
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-06544-JAK-AJW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LAURIE ZELON; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California attorney Jeffrey Gray Thomas appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal claims related to sanctions
entered against Thomas in a state court action. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman
*
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). Thomas’s request for oral
argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Thomas’s action as barred by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Thomas’s claims stemming from the prior state
court action constitute a “de facto appeal” of prior state court judgments, or are
“inextricably intertwined” with those judgments. See id. at 1155-57 (the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine bars de facto appeals of a state court decision); see also Cooper
v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 781-83 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars
claims where “federal relief can only be predicated upon a conviction that the state
court was wrong” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-55404