FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD BRUCE ELLIS, No. 13-35587
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-02330-PK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CITY OF PORTLAND; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2015**
Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Ronald Bruce Ellis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising
out of his arrest and subsequent conviction and imprisonment. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d
*
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).
1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We reverse and remand.
We are unable to determine from the complaint that Ellis filed whether some
of his claims might be cognizable under § 1983. Ellis should be given the
opportunity on remand to clarify his constitutional claims and explain what facts
support them. If clarified, the district court may still determine that Rooker-
Feldman is properly invoked as to some of Ellis’ allegations.
The district court erred in dismissing Ellis’ entire action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Ellis’ action
complained of illegal acts and omissions by defendants, at least some of which do
not allege an error by the state court and therefore do not constitute a de facto
appeal. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163-65 (explaining that Rooker-Feldman does not
bar jurisdiction over an action in which a federal plaintiff complains of a legal
injury caused by an adverse party); see also Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d
1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Rooker-Feldman . . . applies only when the federal
plaintiff both asserts as . . . [his] injury legal error or errors by the state court and
seeks as . . . [his] remedy relief from the state court judgment.”).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
2 13-35587