Vikas Sareen v. Reema Sareen;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIKAS SAREEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
REEMA SAREEN; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-17395
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00176-LKK-
EFB
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Vikas Sareen, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 08-17395 2
connection with his child custody proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.
2003). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
barred Vikas Sareen’s action because it is a “forbidden de facto appeal” of a state
court decision, and raises constitutional claims that are “inextricably intertwined”
with that prior state court decision. Id. at 1158; see also Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam,
334 F.3d 895, 900 n.4 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that under the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine, “[i]t is immaterial that [the plaintiff] frames his federal
complaint as a constitutional challenge to the state court[’s] decision[], rather than
as a direct appeal of [that decision]”).
Appellant’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --