Duane Ronald Belanus v. State of Montana; Attorney General for the State of Montana; Lewis and Clark County

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DUANE RONALD BELANUS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MONTANA; ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
MONTANA; LEWIS AND CLARK
COUNTY,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-35838
D.C. No. 6:21-cv-00024-SEH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Montana state prisoner Duane Ronald Belanus appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging various constitutional
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
* 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 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-35838
dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A). Resnick v. Hayes,
213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Belanus’s claims because they are a
“forbidden de facto appeal” of state court proceedings and raise issues that are
“inextricably intertwined” with those proceedings. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d
1148, 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine).
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 --