DONALD DAVID deROSIER v. Christopher Longaker;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONALD DAVID deROSIER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LONGAKER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-16556
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01617-MCE-
EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Donald David deRosier, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his action arising from a small claims court dispute. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or (6). Colony Cove
FILED
JAN 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 640 F.3d 948, 955 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed deRosier’s action as barred by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the action is “forbidden de facto appeal” of a
state court judgment and raises constitutional claims that are “inextricably
intertwined” with the state court judgment. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th
Cir. 2003); Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding
that the district court lacked jurisdiction where the plaintiff “essentially asked the
federal court to review the state court’s denial in a judicial proceeding, and to
afford him the same individual remedy he was denied in state court” (internal
citation and quotation marks omitted)).
Because we affirm on the basis of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, we do not
address deRosier’s arguments concerning judicial immunity and Eleventh
Amendment immunity.
deRosier’s requests, set forth in his opening brief, for a new trial judge on
remand and for clarification regarding his ability to recover attorney’s fees are
denied.
AFFIRMED.
12-16556 2

-- 2 of 2 --