United States v. 2023-05-19 | 21-16834 | JULIUS ENGEL, ET AL V. TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE | nonprecedential…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIUS M. ENGEL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; STATE
OF CALIFORNIA,
Intervenor-Plaintiffs,
v.
TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-16834
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00893-JAM-JDP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 16, 2023**
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Julius M. Engel appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
* 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
MAY 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-16834
his action alleging various claims relating to his disbarment from the practice of
law in the State of California. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Seismic Reservoir 2020, Inc. v. Paulsson, 785 F.3d 330, 333 (9th
Cir. 2015) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)); Noel v. Hall,
341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Engel’s action is a de
facto appeal of a prior state court judgment, and he raises claims that are
inextricably intertwined with that judgment. See Scheer v. Kelly, 817 F.3d 1183,
1186 (9th Cir. 2016) (an attorney’s challenge to the State Bar’s suspension
decision is barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it is a de facto
appeal of the Supreme Court of California’s denial of her petition for review);
Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 777-79 (9th Cir. 2012) (the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine bars district court from exercising jurisdiction over a “de facto” appeal of
a state court decision and claims “inextricably intertwined” with the state court
decision).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-16834
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --