Matthew Scott White v. Steven L. Dobrescu

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MATTHEW SCOTT WHITE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STEVEN L. DOBRESCU; STATE OF
NEVADA; ROBERT S. BECKETT;
HARDESTY; DOUGLAS; CHERRY;
SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT; FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-16149
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00680-MMD-
WGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 11, 2016**
San Francisco, California
FILED
JUN 10 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 4 --

Before: McKEOWN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges and LEFKOW,*** Senior
District Judge.
Matthew Scott White, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations
of the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act (“RLUIPA”) in connection with Judge Dobrescu’s denial of White’s petition
to change his name for religious reasons. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194
(9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We may affirm
on any ground supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP,
534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm the dismissal but reverse the
district court’s decision to do so with prejudice.
Dismissal of White’s action was proper because his claims amounted to a
forbidden “de facto appeal” of unfavorable judgments in Nevada state court and
are barred by the Rooker–Feldman doctrine. See Elwood v. Drescher, 456 F.3d
943, 948 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that Rooker–Feldman provides a jurisdictional
ground for dismissal and federal courts must generally address jurisdictional issues
*** The Honorable Joan H. Lefkow, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 4 --

first); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163–65 (9th Cir. 2003) (the Rooker–Feldman
doctrine applies where a federal plaintiff complains of a legal wrong allegedly
committed by the state court, and seeks relief from the judgment of that court).
Because we affirm the dismissal on the basis of the Rooker–Feldman
doctrine, we treat the dismissal as one without prejudice. See Kelly v. Fleetwood
Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissals for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice). We therefore affirm the district
court’s dismissal of White’s claims, but reverse and remand so the district court
can enter an order dismissing White’s petition without prejudice.
No costs will be assessed on appeal.
AFFIRMED AS TO DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS; REVERSED AND
REMANDED AS TO DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE.
3

-- 3 of 4 --

White v. Dobrescu, 14-16149
Joan H. Lefkow, District Judge, concurring.
I agree with the majority but would indicate to the appellant that he may
seek leave to amend his complaint in federal court by pleading that Nevada’s
statutory restriction on name changes for prisoners violates RLUIPA, which would
create subject matter jurisdiction and would not be a de facto appeal from the state
court judgment.
FILED
JUN 10 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 4 of 4 --