Samuel Rosen v. Beatrice Nelson , 623 F. App'x 498 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                           NOV 30 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    SAMUEL ROSEN,                                    No. 15-56179
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:15-cv-01669-WQH-
    BGS
    v.
    BEATRICE NELSON,                                 MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 18, 2015**
    Before:        TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    Samuel Rosen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
    his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a constitutional violation arising from a state
    court’s dismissal of his defamation action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
    § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 
    668 F.3d 1108
    , 1112 (9th Cir.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Noel v. Hall, 
    341 F.3d 1148
    , 1154
    (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Rosen’s action because it is a
    “forbidden de facto appeal” of the state court’s order granting defendant Nelson’s
    anti-SLAPP motion to strike and raises claims that are “inextricably intertwined”
    with the order striking Rosen’s state court complaint. See Cooper v. Ramos, 
    704 F.3d 772
    , 777, 779 (9th Cir. 2012) (the Rooker–Feldman doctrine “bars a district
    court from exercising jurisdiction not only over an action explicitly styled as a
    direct appeal, but also over the ‘de facto equivalent’ of such an appeal,” and
    explaining when claims are inextricably intertwined (citation omitted)).
    Rosen’s motion for judicial notice, filed on September 3, 2015, is denied.
    Rosen’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on September 17, 2015, is
    denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     15-56179
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-56179

Citation Numbers: 623 F. App'x 498

Filed Date: 11/30/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023