Hiram Ash v. ROGER BOREN, Justice of the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HIRAM ASH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROGER BOREN, Justice of the California
Court of Appeal, Second Appellate
District; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-55055
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-7334 ODW-PJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Hiram Ash appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process
violations concerning state court appellate decisions. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
AUG 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-55055 2
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, and may affirm on any proper ground
supported by the record. Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. Locke, 568 F.3d 757, 764 (9th
Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction because, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Ash’s action is a
“forbidden de facto appeal” of certain transfer and consolidation decisions by the
California Court of Appeal, Second District that are “inextricably intertwined”
with the state court’s judgment. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003);
see also Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898-900 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rooker-
Feldman barred plaintiff’s due process claim where his request to vacate the state
appellate court’s opinion and to have his appeal reassigned to different justices was
inextricably intertwined with the state court judgment whose “undoing” he sought).
We grant Ash’s motion to supplement the record. Ash’s remaining
contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --