Peter Barclay v. DANIEL R. MURPHY; GLEN D. BAISINGER; LINN COUNTY, Oregon; DISCOVER BANK

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETER BARCLAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DANIEL R. MURPHY; GLEN D.
BAISINGER; LINN COUNTY, Oregon;
DISCOVER BANK,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-35310
D.C. No. 6:22-cv-00308-MC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Peter Barclay appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of divorce proceedings.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison 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
AUG 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-35310
Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal
under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Barclay’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because the action constitutes a forbidden “de facto appeal” of
prior state court judgments and raises claims that are “inextricably intertwined”
with those judgments, and because Barclay did not allege facts sufficient to show
that any alleged fraud on the court affected the state court judgments. Noel, 341
F.3d at 1163-65 (discussing proper application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine);
see also Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 782 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that
claims are “inextricably intertwined” with state court decisions where federal
adjudication “would impermissibly undercut the state ruling on the same issues”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359
F.3d 1136, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing the extrinsic fraud exception to the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Barclay’s motion
for reconsideration because Barclay failed to establish any basis for such relief.
See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.
1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59 and 60).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-35310
Barclay’s motion to file a supplemental brief (Docket Entry No. 10) is
granted. The Clerk will file the amended opening brief received at Docket Entry
No. 9.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --