Carina Conerly v. Yee Yang

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARINA CONERLY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
YEE YANG; CAROLINE WENZEL
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL; SHARIF
ROLDAN TARPIN; JULIE G. YAP;
SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT;
SACRAMENTO COUNTY UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-15281
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01618-WBS-DB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Carina Conerly appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
her action alleging claims federal claims arising from state court custody
* 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
NOV 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-15281
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Conerly’s action because it is a
“forbidden de facto appeal” of a state court custody judgment and raises issues that
are “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148,
1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also
Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting claims are
“inextricably intertwined” for purposes of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine where “the
relief requested in the federal action would effectively reverse the state court
decision or void its ruling” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --