Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
22-16970•Gary A. Cordery v. Hawaii Supreme Court
22-16970Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit21.08.2023
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GARY A. CORDERY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HAWAII SUPREME COURT; MARK E.
RECKTENWALD; HOLLY T. SHIKADA,
Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Attorney General for the State of Hawaii,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16970
D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00439-HG-KJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Gary A. Cordery appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising
out of his state court case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
* 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
AUG 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 22-16970
review de novo. Seismic Reservoir 2020, Inc. v. Paulsson, 785 F.3d 330, 333 (9th
Cir. 2015) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)); Noel v. Hall,
341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Cordery’s action is a
“forbidden de facto appeal” of a state court judgment and raises claims that are
“inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1158, 1163
(discussing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d
772, 779 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that claims are “inextricably intertwined”
where “the relief requested in the federal action would effectively reverse the state
court decision or void its ruling” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.