NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 12 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORMAN BARTSCH HERTERICH, No. 20-17197
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:20-cv-03992-SBA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERNEST H. GOLDSMITH; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Norman Bartsch Herterich appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising
from a California state court case involving his father’s estate. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R.
*
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).
Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Seismic Reservoir 2020, Inc. v. Paulsson, 785 F.3d
330, 333 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Herterich’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it was a “forbidden
de facto appeal” of prior state court decisions and Herterich raised claims that were
“inextricably intertwined” with those state court decisions. See Noel v. Hall, 341
F.3d 1148, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see
also Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 782 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that claims
are “inextricably intertwined” with state court decisions where federal adjudication
“would impermissibly undercut the state ruling on the same issues” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as meritless Herterich’s contention that the district court
improperly relied on facts that conflicted with the complaint when it took judicial
notice of prior state court decisions.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Herterich’s
complaint without leave to amend because further amendment of Herterich’s
claims 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
dismissal without leave to amend is proper if amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-17197