Paul Bashkin v. Michael J. Hickman, an individual;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL BASHKIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. HICKMAN, an individual;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-55455
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00995-LAB-
CAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Paul Bashkin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 action challenging a state court decision declaring
him a vexatious litigant. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
FILED
JAN 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-55455 2
de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (jurisdictional
dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082,
1086 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal for failure to state a claim). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
barred Bashkin’s action to the extent that he challenged the vexatious litigant order
and any other state court orders and judgments, because the action is a “forbidden
de facto appeal” of state court judgments, and raises constitutional claims that are
“inextricably intertwined” with those prior state court judgments. Noel, 341 F.3d
at 1158. Contrary to Bashkin’s argument, “Rooker-Feldman applies where the
plaintiff in federal court claims that the state court did not have jurisdiction to
render a judgment.” Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038, 1043 n.6 (9th Cir. 2005).
The district court properly dismissed the due process claims because the
record shows that Bashkin received due process prior to the state court’s entry of
the vexatious litigant order. See Shanks, 540 F.3d at 1090 (elements of procedural
due process claim).
Bashkin’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --