Peter Barclay v. State of Oregon , 672 F. App'x 682 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      DEC 22 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    PETER BARCLAY, Staff Sergeant, US Air            No. 16-35013
    Force, Discharged and as Family,
    D.C. No. 6:15-cv-01920-MC
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    STATE OF OREGON; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Oregon
    Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 14, 2016**
    Before:       WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    Peter Barclay appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
    his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging federal and state law claims arising from an
    unfavorable judgment by the Oregon state court in a prior family law action.
    *
    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).
    We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo both the
    dismissal of an action under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e), Barren v. Harrington, 
    152 F.3d 1193
    , 1194 (9th Cir. 1998), and under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Noel v. Hall,
    
    341 F.3d 1148
    , 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Barclay’s action for lack of subject
    matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it amounted to a
    forbidden “de facto appeal” of a state court judgment and raised claims that were
    “inextricably intertwined” with that state court judgment. See Noel, 
    341 F.3d at 1163-65
    . We reject as without merit Barclay’s contentions regarding the
    applicability of exceptions 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).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                   16-35013
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-35013

Citation Numbers: 672 F. App'x 682

Filed Date: 12/22/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023