Michael Hucul v. County of San Diego

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 18, 2019
Docket18-55354
StatusUnpublished

This text of Michael Hucul v. County of San Diego (Michael Hucul v. County of San Diego) 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
Michael Hucul v. County of San Diego, (9th Cir. 2019).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL HUCUL, No. 18-55354

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-01531-JLS-DHB

v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 11, 2019**

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Michael Hucul appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action alleging a violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act (“RFPA”). We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003).

* 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). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hucul’s action as barred by the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it is a de facto appeal of prior state court

decisions and raises claims that are inextricably intertwined with state court

decisions. See id. at 1163-65 (Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars de facto appeals of a

state court decision and claims “inextricably intertwined” with the state court

decision); see also Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir.

2008) (a de facto appeal is one in which “the adjudication of the federal claims

would undercut the state ruling or require the district court to interpret the

application of state laws or procedural rules” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted))

Appellee Griffin’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 13) is

denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 18-55354

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Michael Hucul v. County of San Diego, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-hucul-v-county-of-san-diego-ca9-2019.