Howard Hofelich v. Barbara Lacy

616 F. App'x 310

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 9, 2015
• Docket: 14-16118
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Howard Hofelich appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims concerning his property seized pursuant to a state court writ of execution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hofelich’s action under the Rooker-Feld-man doctrine because the action is a de facto appeal of the state court’s writ of execution. See id. at 1163-65 (Rooker-Feldman bars de facto appeals of a state court decision and constitutional claims “inextricably intertwined” with the state court decision).

The district court properly denied Hofe-lich’s motions for default judgment because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

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