Nikiforos P. Kalfountzos v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Calpers

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NIKIFOROS P. KALFOUNTZOS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT; CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Calpers,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15402
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02734-JAM-
EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 28, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Nikiforos P. Kalfountzos appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action challenging the California Public Employees’ Retirement
FILED
MAR 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15402 2
System’s denial of his application for retirement benefits. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154
(9th Cir. 2003)); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)
(order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Kalfountzos’s action sua sponte as
barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the action is a “forbidden de facto
appeal” of a state court judgment and raises constitutional claims that are
“inextricably intertwined” with the state court judgment. Noel, 341 F.3d at 1158;
see also Elwood v. Drescher, 456 F.3d 943, 948 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[F]ederal courts
must generally address jurisdictional issues first.”).
Kalfountzos’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --