Phan v. County of Orange

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 29, 2025
• Docket: 23-2948
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 29 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TIN PHAN, No. 23-2948 D.C. No. 8:23-cv-00374-JWH-KES Petitioner - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF ORANGE; SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILY,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John W. Holcomb, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 22, 2025**

Before: CLIFTON, CALLAHAN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Tin Phan appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action

seeking to confirm an arbitration award regarding the custody of his minor child.

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

* 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). 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 Phan’s action for lack of subject matter

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

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

that judgment. See id. at 1163 (“It 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 arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

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

County of Orange’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 14) is

granted. Phan’s request for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied. All

other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-2948