FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARINA READ, No. 12-56223
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02662-MWF-
MRW
v.
DENISE de BELLEFEUILLE; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Marina Read appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
her action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. 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 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
*
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).
The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine over Read’s claims which
amounted to a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a state court judgment and raised
claims that were “inextricably intertwined” with that state court judgment. Id. at
1163-65 (discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs v. Valley View
Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred
plaintiff’s claim because alleged legal injuries arose from the “state court’s
purportedly erroneous judgment” and the relief sought “would require the district
court to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Read’s action
without leave to amend because Read cannot correct the defects in her complaint.
See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (setting forth
standard of review and explaining that leave to amend should be given unless the
deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment).
Read’s contentions that she was denied her right to discovery and to a jury
trial, and that the district court did not take her allegations as true, are
unpersuasive.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
2 12-56223
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Timm Delaney’s and Pickford Real Estate, Inc.’s request for joinder and
incorporation by reference contained in their answering brief is granted.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-56223