Ash v. Boren

Ninth Circuit

Ash v. Boren

390 F. App'x 712

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 2, 2010

Docket08-55055

StatusUnpublished

This text of 390 F. App'x 712 (Ash v. Boren) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ash v. Boren, 390 F. App'x 712 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

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 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 plaintiffs 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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

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 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 plaintiffs 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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

390 F. App'x 712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ash-v-boren-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack