Farzana Sheikh, M.d. v. LESLIEY D. HOLLAND, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Court;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FARZANA SHEIKH, M.D.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LESLIEY D. HOLLAND, Presiding Judge
San Joaquin County Court; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15692
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01773-TLN-AC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Farzana Sheikh, M.D., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in
her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with
her state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
OCT 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-15692
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Sheikh’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because her claims
constituted a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment. See Noel
v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing application of Rooker-
Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th
Cir. 2007) (explaining that Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred plaintiff’s claim
because alleged legal injuries arose from the “state court’s purportedly erroneous
judgment” and the relief sought “would require the district court to determine that
the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --