FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 4 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS ANDERSON, No. 12-35230
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 6:11-cv-06406-TC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STATE OF OREGON,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Thomas Anderson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related to unfavorable
judgments by the Oregon state court in prior tort, breach of contract, and family
*
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).
law actions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
both the dismissal of an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Barren v. Harrington,
152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Anderson’s claims as barred by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine because they amounted to a forbidden “de facto appeal”
of unfavorable judgments in prior Oregon state court, and raised constitutional
claims that were “inextricably intertwined” with those state-court judgments. Noel,
341 F.3d at 1163-65; Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 778-79 (9th Cir. 2012)
(under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, claims are inextricably intertwined where
“‘the relief requested in the federal action would effectively reverse the state court
decision or void its ruling’” (citation omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Anderson’s
action without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See
Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1129-30 (9th Cir.
2013) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend may be
denied where the complaint cannot be saved by any amendment).
Anderson’s contentions regarding the alleged inconsistencies in the district
court’s reasons for dismissing the action, and the allegedly erroneous application
2 12-35230
of an abstention doctrine as an alternative basis for dismissal, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-35230