Morilha v. Santa Clara County Superior Court

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 26, 2025
• Docket: 23-3173
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 26 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL VITOR MORILHA, No. 23-3173 D.C. No. 4:22-cv-03565-JST Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 17, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, OWENS, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Vitor Morilha appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from state court

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

* 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). Platt v. Moore, 15 F.4th 895, 901 (9th Cir. 2021) (interpretation of state law); Noel

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

doctrine). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Morilha’s action because it was barred

by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, or Morilha otherwise failed to allege timely

compliance with the California Tort Claims Act. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163-65

(discussing proper application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; explaining that

“[i]f a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by

a state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that decision,

Rooker-Feldman bars subject matter jurisdiction in federal court”); Mangold v.

Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The California Tort

Claims Act requires, as a condition precedent to suit against a public entity, the

timely presentation of a written claim . . . .”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the first amended

complaint without leave to amend because further amendment would be futile. See

Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011)

(setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to

amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Morilha’s request

for discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting

2 23-3173 forth standard of review for a district court’s discovery rulings).

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 are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 23-3173