NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND FELDMAN; et al., No. 15-56958
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-04892-MMM-
JEM
v.
THE HONORABLE PATTI JO McKAY; MEMORANDUM*
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with
plaintiffs’ state court unlawful detainer proceedings. We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because their claims
constituted a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior, final state court judgment. See
id. at 1163 (“It is a forbidden de facto appeal under Rooker-Feldman when the
plaintiff in federal district court complains of a legal wrong allegedly committed
by the state court, and seeks relief from the judgment of that court.”); see also
Mothershed v. Justices of Supreme Court, 410 F.3d 602, 604 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005)
(state court proceedings “ended for Rooker-Feldman purposes” upon state supreme
court’s denial of a request for writ of mandamus). We reject as unsupported by the
record plaintiffs’ contention that defendants issued a void order in state court
proceedings that precluded the application of Rooker-Feldman.
Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the district court’s order granting the
motion to dismiss did not violate the law of the case doctrine because the issues
presented in that motion had not already been decided by the district court or a
higher court. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 706 F.3d 1085, 1090
(9th Cir. 2013) (law of the case doctrine pertains to reconsideration of “an issue
2 15-56958
that has already been decided by the same court or a higher court in the same
case.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
3 15-56958