Charles Kinney v. Roger Boren ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 28 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES G. KINNEY, No. 16-17255
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-06505-VC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROGER W. BOREN; DAVID LANE,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Charles G. Kinney appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing sua sponte his action arising from a state appellate court order requiring
Kinney to post a security bond. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
*
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). Kinney’s request for oral
argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341
F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Kinney’s action as barred by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Kinney’s claims amount to a forbidden “de
facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment or are “inextricably intertwined” with
that judgment. See id. at 1163-65 (discussing proper application of the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kinney’s motion
for a temporary restraining order. See id.; Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
351 F.3d 1291, 1298 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint
without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. Cervantes v.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth
standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper
when amendment would be futile).
We do not consider 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.
2 16-17255