Opinion
22-16919
08-04-2023
SHERIF A. PHILIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JUDICIARY OF GUAM, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not preceden except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 1:22-cv-00014 for the District of Guam Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Sherif A. Philips appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims arising out of prio litigation. 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). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Philips's action because the action constitutes a forbidden "de facto appeal" of prior state court and Guam Superior Court judgments and raises claims that are "inextricably intertwined" with those judgments. See id. at 1163-65 (discussing proper application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (explaining that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments").
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).