John Benjamin Freeman v. King County Superior Court;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN BENJAMIN FREEMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-35570
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01006-JCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
John Benjamin Freeman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action alleging extrinsic fraud in
connection with prior state court litigation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
MAR 24 2015
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 --

§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal, Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d
1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Freeman’s action under the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine because Freeman’s claims based on extrinsic fraud have been
raised and rejected in a prior state court action and this action, therefore, amounts to a
de facto appeal of that state court judgment. See Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A, 525
F.3d 855, 858-60 (9th Cir. 2008) (defining a “de facto appeal” under the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine, and explaining that the doctrine bars a claim of extrinsic fraud if
the alleged fraud has been separately litigated in a state action to vacate the
purportedly erroneous judgment).
AFFIRMED.
13-35570 2

-- 2 of 2 --