Joel Beck v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 30, 2024
• Docket: 23-15203
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOEL BECK, No. 23-15203

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00225-MMD-CLB

v. MEMORANDUM* NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, DBA Mr. Cooper; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee Securitized Trust Structured; FIRST AMERICAN TRUSTEE SERVICING SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Joel Beck appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his

action alleging a due process claim arising from state court proceedings. We have

* 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). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341

F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Beck’s action as barred by the Rooker-

Feldman doctrine because it amounted to a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior

state court judgment and raised a constitutional claim that was “inextricably

intertwined” with that judgment. See id. at 1163-65 (discussing proper application

of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Benavidez v. County of San Diego, 993

F.3d 1134, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine

applies even where the challenge to the state court decision involves federal

constitutional issues); Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 860 (9th Cir.

2008) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars a claim of extrinsic fraud if the alleged fraud

has been separately litigated in a state action).

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 requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-15203