Hendrick Lucas v. Wamu Mortgage Pass Through Certificates Series 2005-Ar19 Trust, Aka Wamu 2005-Ar19;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HENDRICK LUCAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WAMU MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH
CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-AR19
TRUST, AKA WAMU 2005-AR19; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-55385
D.C. No. 5:20-cv-01366-JGB-KK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Hendrick Lucas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of a foreclosure. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal 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).
FILED
MAR 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-55385
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lucas’s action because the action
constitutes a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment and raises
claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment, and because Lucas
did not allege facts sufficient to show that any alleged fraud on the court affected
the state court judgments. Id. at 1163-65 (discussing proper application of the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609,
616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman barred plaintiff’s claim because the relief
sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision
was wrong and thus void”); Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th
Cir. 2004) (discussing the extrinsic fraud exception to the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --