Marvin Carrera v. Rhonda K. Forsberg

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARVIN CARRERA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RHONDA K. FORSBERG,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-16582
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-02138-GMN-EJY
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Marvin Carrera appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging various federal claims arising from state court child custody
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011)
* 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).
FILED
DEC 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-16582
(dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d
1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under Rooker-Feldman doctrine). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Carrera’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it was a “forbidden
de facto appeal” of a prior state court decision and raised issues that were
“inextricably intertwined” with that decision. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163-65
(discussing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi
Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (explaining that the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine is limited to “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries
caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings
commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments”);
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 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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --