Duane Belanus v. State of Montana ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 21 2022
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DUANE RONALD BELANUS,                           No. 21-35838
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 6:21-cv-00024-SEH
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    STATE OF MONTANA; ATTORNEY
    GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
    MONTANA; LEWIS AND CLARK
    COUNTY,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Montana
    Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted July 12, 2022**
    Before:      SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
    Montana state prisoner Duane Ronald Belanus appeals pro se from the
    district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging various constitutional
    claims. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo a
    *
    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).
    dismissal for failure to state a claim under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (A). Resnick v. Hayes,
    
    213 F.3d 443
    , 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Belanus’s claims because they are a
    “forbidden de facto appeal” of state court proceedings and raise issues that are
    “inextricably intertwined” with those proceedings. See Noel v. Hall, 
    341 F.3d 1148
    , 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing 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                                   21-35838