George A. McKray; v. California Supreme Court;

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). Accordingly, appellants’
request for oral argument is denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE A. MCKRAY; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-15121
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-04079-SI
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
George A. McKray and Anthony Lamperti appeal pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging violations of their federal
FILED
APR 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
constitutional rights in connection with unpublished decisions by the California
Courts of Appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (reviewing dismissal
under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Schmier v. U.S. Ct. of App. for the Ninth Cir.,
279 F.3d 817, 820 (9th Cir. 2002) (reviewing questions of standing). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed as barred by the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine the claims that sought review and remand of final California Courts of
Appeal decisions. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1164 (“If a federal plaintiff asserts as a
legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from
a state court judgment based on that decision, Rooker-Feldman bars subject matter
jurisdiction in federal district court.”).
The district court properly dismissed for lack of standing the remaining
claims challenging a court rule regarding unpublished decisions. See Schmier, 279
F.3d at 820-21 (stating that a plaintiff must allege an injury capable of redress to
establish standing).
Appellants’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Appellants’ request to submit further briefing is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --