Armando Gomez v. San Diego Family 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMANDO GOMEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SAN DIEGO FAMILY COURT,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-55525
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00013-DMS-
BLM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Armando Gomez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his action challenging a state court child custody
decision. 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.
FILED
JUL 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-55525 2
The district court properly concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
barred the 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]”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --