Raja Mittal v. County of Clark ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAJA MITTAL, No. 17-16081
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01037-KJD-VCF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF CLARK; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Raja Mittal appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
action alleging federal and state law claims arising from state custody proceedings.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d
1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
*
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 district court properly dismissed Mittal’s federal claims against
defendants County of Clark, Clark County Department of Family Services, Clark
County Child Protective Services, and the County employees for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the claims
constitute a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment, or are
“inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148,
1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing application of Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see
also 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”).
The district court properly dismissed Mittal’s federal claims against
defendants Nyarko, Downey, Harder, Jarman, and Draskovich because Mittal
failed to allege facts sufficient to state plausible claims for relief. See Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (plaintiff must plead sufficient factual matter to
allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
alleged misconduct); see also West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (to state a
claim under § 1983 a plaintiff must show that the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law); Trerice v. Pedersen, 769
2 17-16081
F.2d 1398, 1403 (9th Cir. 1985) (a § 1986 claim must be premised on a valid §
1985 claim); Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1028-30 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)
(elements of a § 1985 claim).
The district court properly dismissed Mittal’s state law claims for negligence
per se and medical malpractice against Nyarko, Downey, Harder, and Jarman
because Mittal failed to allege facts sufficient to state plausible claims for relief.
See Sanchez ex rel. Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 221 P.3d 1276, 1283 (Nev.
2009) (setting forth elements of negligence per se claim under Nevada law);
Washoe Med. Ctr. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court of State of Nev. ex rel. County of
Washoe, 148 P.3d 790, 794 (Nev. 2006) (“[A] medical malpractice complaint filed
without a supporting medical expert affidavit is void ab initio, meaning it is of no
force and effect.” (citation omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Mittal’s state law claims against Draskovich.
See Notrica v. Bd. of Sup’rs of Cty. of San Diego, 925 F.2d 1211, 1213-14 (9th Cir.
1991) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that judicial economy,
convenience, fairness, and comity should be considered in deciding whether to
hear pendant state law claims).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, including the district court’s dismissal of Mittal’s claims
3 17-16081
against defendant Katowich, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time
on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
4 17-16081