Matthew White v. Steven Dobrescu

Ninth Circuit

Matthew White v. Steven Dobrescu

651 F. App'x 701

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 10, 2016

Docket14-16149

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 651 F. App'x 701 (Matthew White v. Steven Dobrescu) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matthew White v. Steven Dobrescu, 651 F. App'x 701 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinions

MEMORANDUM

***

Matthew Scott White, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) in connection with Judge Do-brescu’s denial of White’s petition to change his name for religious reasons. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We may affirm on- any ground supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm the dismissal but reverse the district court’s decision to do so with prejudice.

Dismissal of White’s action was proper because his claims amounted to a forbidden “de facto appeal” of unfavorable judgments in Nevada state court and are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Elwood v. Drescher, 456 F.3d 943, 948 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that Rooker-Feldman provides a jurisdictional ground for dismissal and federal courts must generally address jurisdictional issues first); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) (the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies where a federal plaintiff complains of a legal wrong allegedly committed by [703]*703the state court, and seeks relief from the judgment of that court).

Because we affirm the dismissal on the basis of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, we treat the dismissal as one without prejudice. See Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice). We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of White’s claims, but reverse and remand so the district court can enter an order dismissing White’s petition without prejudice.

No costs will be assessed on appeal.

AFFIRMED AS TO DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS; REVERSED AND REMANDED AS TO DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

***

Matthew Scott White, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) in connection with Judge Do-brescu’s denial of White’s petition to change his name for religious reasons. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We may affirm on- any ground supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm the dismissal but reverse the district court’s decision to do so with prejudice.

Dismissal of White’s action was proper because his claims amounted to a forbidden “de facto appeal” of unfavorable judgments in Nevada state court and are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Elwood v. Drescher, 456 F.3d 943, 948 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that Rooker-Feldman provides a jurisdictional ground for dismissal and federal courts must generally address jurisdictional issues first); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) (the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies where a federal plaintiff complains of a legal wrong allegedly committed by [703]*703the state court, and seeks relief from the judgment of that court).

Because we affirm the dismissal on the basis of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, we treat the dismissal as one without prejudice. See Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice). We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of White’s claims, but reverse and remand so the district court can enter an order dismissing White’s petition without prejudice.

No costs will be assessed on appeal.

AFFIRMED AS TO DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS; REVERSED AND REMANDED AS TO DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

651 F. App'x 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthew-white-v-steven-dobrescu-ca9-2016.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack