Summary
affirming dismissal of action alleging constitutional violation in state court child custody action on Rooker-Feldman grounds
Summary of this case from Conerly v. TarpinOpinion
No. 08-17395.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed December 14, 2009.
Vikas Sareen, Fresh Meadows, NY, pro se.
Richard Charles Miadich, Olson Hagel Fishburn LLP, Jeri Lynn Pappone, Longyear O'Dea and Lavra, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00176-LKK-EFB.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Vikas Sareen, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his child custody proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Vikas Sareen's action because it is a "forbidden de facto appeal" of a state court decision, and raises constitutional claims that are "inextricably intertwined" with that prior state court decision. Id. at 1158; see also Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 900 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, "[i]t is immaterial that [the plaintiff] frames his federal complaint as a constitutional challenge to the state court['s] decision[], rather than as a direct appeal of [that decision]").
Appellant's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.