FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 05 2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KAVIN MAURICE RHODES, No. 14-55314
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02863-JGB-
DTB
v.
GIGI GORDON, in individual capacity; MEMORANDUM*
RALPH J. NOVOTNEY, in individual
capacity; SAM OHTA, in official capacity;
BRENTFORD FERRIERA, in individual
capacity; HARVEY SHERMAN, in
individual capacity; CESEY
LILIENFELD; MICHAEL P. JUDGE;
RALPH RIOS; CRISTINA COLON;
DAUPHINE DANE; P. ENG; JESS
GONZALES, City Attorney; EPPERSON,
Sgt.; HERNANDEZ, Officer; MARIN,
Officer; GLORIA BARRERAS, in her
individual capacity; GEORGETTE L.
RODARTE, in her individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Submitted October 1, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Kavin Maurice Rhodes (“Rhodes”) appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing his action against seventeen named defendants. The district court,
accepting the extensive and careful findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the United States Magistrate Judge, granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and
motion to quash. The district court also granted Rhodes leave to file a third
amended complaint with regard to a possible claim against prison officials for
retaliation, but Rhodes opted not to amend. The district court dismissed the action
with prejudice on January 29, 2014. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review the district court’s dismissal de novo, and we affirm.
Rhodes, a California state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various other constitutional and statutory
provisions. He alleged a broad conspiracy among public defenders, prosecutors,
state bar officials, prison officials, a state trial judge, and court staff. In essence, his
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
complaint challenged the California state trial court’s refusal to grant his post-
conviction discovery motion.
We agree with the Magistrate Judge that the Rooker–Feldman doctrine bars
Rhodes’ action. As we have previously held, “The Rooker–Feldman doctrine
instructs that federal district courts are without jurisdiction to hear direct appeals
from the judgments of state courts. . . . The doctrine bars a district court from
exercising jurisdiction not only over an action explicitly styled as a direct appeal,
but also over the ‘de facto equivalent’ of such an appeal.” Cooper v. Ramos, 704
F.3d 772, 777 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted).
Although the Rooker–Feldman doctrine has a narrow scope, this case falls
squarely within its parameters. Id. at 778. Rhodes, frustrated by his lack of success
in state court, sought review of those proceedings in federal district court. Framing
the complaint in terms of “conspiracy” does not alter the fact that Rhodes seeks
review of an unfavorable state court ruling. Rhodes’ complaint does not constitute
a parallel federal suit, but rather an attempt at a de facto appeal. Id. at 778. His
conspiracy allegations are “inextricably linked” with his state court suit because
the relief he seeks is to overturn California’s decision in that case. Id. The district
court properly dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
3
The Magistrate Judge raised the possibility that Rhodes might have a
colorable retaliation claim against the prison official defendants, which would fall
outside of the Rooker–Feldman bar. However, the Magistrate Judge found that the
second amended complaint’s allegations were “vague and conclusory” and were
“insufficient to state a retaliation claim against the named prison official
defendants.” The district court granted Rhodes the opportunity to amend regarding
the retaliation claim, which Rhodes chose not to do. Upon receipt of Rhodes’
notice of intent not to amend the second amended complaint, the district court
dismissed the full action with prejudice.
To the extent any claims fall outside of the Rooker–Feldman bar, we affirm
the district court for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations.
AFFIRMED.
4