NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUSAN MAE POLK, No. 14-17141
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00290-AWI
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner and Chapter 7 debtor Susan Mae Polk appeals pro
se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court order denying her
motion to avoid a lien and denying injunctive relief. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. §§ 158 and 1291. We review de novo a district court’s decision on appeal
*
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).
from a bankruptcy court, and review a bankruptcy court’s decision independently,
without deference to the district court’s decision. In re JTS Corp., 617 F.3d 1102,
1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of
law de novo and for clear error its findings of fact. Id. We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly denied Polk’s motion to avoid the County’s
lien because the County’s lien was consensual and arose from the promissory note
and deed of trust, not a judicial lien that could be avoided under 11 U.S.C.
§ 522(f). See In re Chiu, 304 F.3d 905, 908 (9th Cir. 2002) (under § 522(f), the
lien to be avoided must be a judicial lien).
The bankruptcy court properly denied Polk’s motion for injunctive relief
because the County did not retain Polk’s property in violation of the discharge
injunction. See 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2); Zilog, Inc. v. Corning, 450 F.3d 996, 1007-
08 (9th Cir. 2006) (requirements for establishing violation of the discharge
injunction).
The bankruptcy court properly declined to consider Polk’s substantive and
procedural challenges to state court orders because her challenges fell outside the
bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction. See Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 897 (9th
Cir. 2013) (“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine forbids a losing party in state court
from filing suit in federal district court complaining of an injury caused by a state
court judgment, and seeking federal court review and rejection of that judgment.”).
2 14-17141
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
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Polk’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 56) is granted.
Polk’s motion requesting oral argument (Docket Entry No. 57) is denied.
Polk’s motion to strike the County’s answering brief (Docket Entry No. 63)
is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-17141