Loop v. State of Washington

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN TORSTEN LOOP, No. 24-5020 D.C. No. 2:24-cv-00669-KKE Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* STATE OF WASHINGTON; JAMS MEDIATION ARBITRATION AND ADR SERVICES; HELEN L. HALPERT, Honorable (Retired), JAMS Arbitrator; BOB FERGUSON, Washington State Attorney General,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Kymberly K. Evanson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2026**

Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

John Torsten Loop appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

* 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). dismissing Loop’s action alleging constitutional claims arising from state court

proceedings confirming an arbitration order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) 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 Loop’s action for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Loop’s claims are a “de

facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment or are “inextricably intertwined” with

that judgment. See id. at 1163 (explaining that an action “is a forbidden de facto

appeal under Rooker–Feldman when the plaintiff in federal district court

complains of a legal wrong allegedly committed by the state court, and seeks relief

from the judgment of that court”); see also Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 782

(9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that claims are “inextricably intertwined” with state

court decisions where federal adjudication “would impermissibly undercut the state

ruling on the same issues” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

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

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-5020