James Conerly; v. John Patrick Winn;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES CONERLY; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
JOHN PATRICK WINN; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-17118
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01833-JAM-AC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
James and Carina Conerly and Marilyn Tillman-Conerly appeal pro se from
the district court’s judgment dismissing sua sponte their action alleging claims
based on their state court custody proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject
* 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
JUL 2 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-17118
matter jurisdiction based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d
1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it was a “de facto
appeal” of a prior state court decision and plaintiffs raised claims that were
“inextricably intertwined” with that state court decision. See id. at 1163-65
(discussing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d
772, 782 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that claims, as well as requests for damages,
are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court decisions where federal
adjudication “would impermissibly undercut the state ruling on the same issues”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as meritless plaintiffs’ contention that the district court was biased
against them.
Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement their brief (Docket Entry No. 5) is granted.
The exhibits attached to the motion include private information. The Clerk is
directed to seal the exhibits.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --