Julian v. Aberasturi
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Douglas and Donna Julian appeal pro se the district court’s order dismissing, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c), their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that state officials and the Third Judicial District Juvenile Court violated their constitutional rights by granting provisional emancipation to their seventeen-year-old daughter. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Julians’ action under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the Julians’ complaint challenged a final determination of a state court, see Olson Farms, Inc. v. Barbosa, 134 F.3d 933, 937 (9th Cir.1998), and also raised federal constitutional claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with that previous judgment, see Doe & Assocs. Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1029-30 (9th Cir.2001).
Appellant’s motion to file a late reply brief is granted. The clerk shall file the reply brief received on December 1, 2004.
AFFIRMED.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
127 F. App'x 346 (Julian v. Aberasturi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.