Hendrick Lucas v. Wamu Mortgage Trust

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 20, 2023
• Docket: 21-55385
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HENDRICK LUCAS, No. 21-55385

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:20-cv-01366-JGB-KK

v. MEMORANDUM* WAMU MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-AR19 TRUST, AKA WAMU 2005-AR19; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Hendrick Lucas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of a foreclosure. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under

* 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). the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003).

We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lucas’s action because the action

constitutes a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment and raises

claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment, and because Lucas

did not allege facts sufficient to show that any alleged fraud on the court affected

the state court judgments. Id. at 1163-65 (discussing proper application of the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609,

616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman barred plaintiff’s claim because the relief

sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision

was wrong and thus void”); Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th

Cir. 2004) (discussing the extrinsic fraud exception to the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 21-55385