Sue Sherman v. Washington State Judicial System, for the State of Washington

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUE SHERMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON STATE JUDICIAL
SYSTEM, for the State of Washington,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-35480
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02003-JLR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Sue Sherman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from state
court proceedings concerning real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
OCT 04 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-35480 2
§ 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003).
We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Sherman’s action
amounted to a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a state court judgment and raised
constitutional claims that were “inextricably intertwined” with that state court
judgment. See id. at 1163-65 (discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also
Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman
doctrine barred plaintiff’s claim because alleged legal injuries arose from the “state
court’s purportedly erroneous judgment” and the relief he sought “would require
the district court to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong and thus
void”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without leave to
amend because amendment would have been futile. See Albrecht v. Lund, 845
F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1998) (dismissal without leave to amend is not an abuse of
discretion if amendment would be futile).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

-- 2 of 3 --

12-35480 3
Sherman’s contentions concerning the finality of the state court judgment,
her entitlement to a jury trial in this action, and defense counsel’s allegedly
improper citations to judicially noticeable state court proceedings and documents
are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --