Samuel Spencer v. Robert Sinclair ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 31 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL R. SPENCER, No. 21-15192
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01266-TLN-AC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT SINCLAIR; WILLIAM STEVEN
SHUMWAY; JOHN M. SINCLAIR;
RANDALL R. WILSON; RUSSELL P.
BALDO; SINCLAIR WILSON BALDO
AND CHAMBERLAIN, The Law Firm;
MICHAEL A. JACQUES; LAWRENCE E.
SKIDMORE; TAMI HINDS; BRIAN
WARREN; PATRICIA WARREN,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Samuel R. Spencer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
*
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).
dismissing his action for declaratory relief challenging two California state court
judgments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction on the basis of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d
1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Spencer’s action because it is a
“forbidden de facto appeal” of two state court judgments that were unfavorable to
Spencer, and because Spencer did not allege facts sufficient to show how any
alleged extrinsic fraud affected the state court judgments. See Kougasian v. TMSL,
Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine and the extrinsic fraud exception).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-15192