Sherif Philips v. Judiciary of Guam ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 4 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHERIF A. PHILIPS, No. 22-16919
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00014
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JUDICIARY OF GUAM,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Guam
Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 18, 2023**
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Sherif A. Philips appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims arising out of prior
litigation. 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
*
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).
(9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Philips’s action because the action
constitutes a forbidden “de facto appeal” of prior state court and Guam Superior
Court judgments and raises claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with those
judgments. See id. at 1163-65 (discussing proper application of the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544
U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (explaining that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars “cases
brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court
judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting
district court review and rejection of those judgments”).
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 22-16919