Jeffrey Gray Thomas v. California Department of Justice

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFFREY GRAY THOMAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE; XAVIER BECERRA; ROSARIO
PERRY; NORMAN SOLOMON; HUGH
JOHN GIBSON; BIMHF LLC; HOPE
PARK LOFTS 2001-02910056 LLC; 1130
HOPE STREET INVESTMENT
ASSOCIATES, LLC, a California limited
liability company; DOES, 1 through 10
inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-55655
D.C. No.
8:20-cv-00170-JAK-ADS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 7, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, O'SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
* 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
JUN 8 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Jeffrey G. Thomas appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
his complaint with prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. See Meland v. WEBER, 2 F.4th 838, 843 (9th Cir. 2021)
(dismissal for lack of standing); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003)
(dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
Thomas’s federal court challenge to the allegedly erroneous state court sanction
judgments. A de facto appeal of a state court ruling is not cognizable in federal
court. See Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 2013).
The district court properly dismissed Thomas’s taxpayer claims because
Thomas’s generalized grievances were insufficient to confer standing. See
Western Min. Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 632 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Warth v.
Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975)).
We decline to reconsider our order disbarring Thomas, because he has not
shown that he has been restored as a member in good standing of the State Bar of
California. See In re Jeffrey Gray Thomas, Case No. 20-80143, Docket Entry No.
13.
The motions for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 62, 76, 83, 85, 88) are
denied. Thomas’s objections to the supplemental excerpts of record filed by the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Solomon appellees (Docket Entry No. 78) are overruled.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --