NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 1 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LARRY J. HUDACK; MARIANNE S. No. 16-56148
HUDACK,
D.C. No. 5:16-cv-00634-PSG-KK
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
DALLAS SCOTT HOLMES, Judge
Riverside Superior Court, in his official
capacity,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
Larry J. Hudack and Marianne S. Hudack appeal pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
claims arising from state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a jurisdictional dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Hudacks’ action as barred by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the Hudacks’ action is a “de facto appeal” of a
prior state court judgment, in which they raise issues that are “inextricably
intertwined” with that judgment. See Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d
855, 858-60 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Henrichs v.
Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine
barred plaintiff’s claim because the relief sought “would require the district court
to determine the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Hudacks’
action without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes
v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting
forth standard of review and explaining that a district court can dismiss without
leave to amend where amendment would be futile).
The Hudacks’ motion to strike portions of Judge Holmes’ answering brief
(Docket Entry No. 17) and motion for sanctions (Docket Entry No. 27) are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-56148