Michael Hucul v. County of San Diego
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.
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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
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.