Leslie R. Howard v. Rjf Financial LLC

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LESLIE R. HOWARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RJF FINANCIAL LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-15392
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01213-GMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Leslie R. Howard appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his action alleging that defendant’s debt collection efforts violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and an Arizona statute of limitations. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both a dismissal under
FILED
AUG 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-15392 2
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and a summary judgment. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d
1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment under the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Howard’s action amounted to a forbidden “de
facto appeal” of a state court judgment. Id. at 1163-65 (discussing Rooker-
Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th
Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred plaintiff’s claim because alleged legal
injuries arose from the “state court’s purportedly erroneous judgment” and the
relief he sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s
decision was wrong and thus void”).
We treat the judgment as a dismissal without prejudice. See Kougasian v.
TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissals under
Rooker-Feldman are for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Kelly v. Fleetwood
Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissals for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice).
Howard’s contentions concerning the district court’s denial of his motion to
strike Jennifer Ache’s declaration are unpersuasive. See Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v.
Lozen Int’l, LLC, 285 F.3d 808, 813 (9th Cir. 2002) (“We review for abuse of

-- 2 of 3 --

12-15392 3
discretion evidentiary rulings made in the context of summary judgment.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --