FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAROLD FORD, No. 10-35861
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00640-MHW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
IDAHO STATE BAR; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Mikel H. Williams, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **
Submitted February 28, 2012 ***
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Harold Ford appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging Idaho state bar decisions resolving his claims
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Ford consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
***The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
against a former attorney for misconduct and reimbursement of attorney’s fees.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall,
341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ford’s action as barred by the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine because the action is a “forbidden de facto appeal” of state bar
decisions, and raises constitutional claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with
those decisions. Noel, 341 F.3d at 1158; Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895,
898 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding that the district court lacked jurisdiction where the
plaintiff “essentially asked the federal court to review the state court’s denial in a
judicial proceeding, and to afford him the same individual remedy he was denied in
state court” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)).
Ford’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-35861