Nikiforos Kalfountzos v. Sacramento County Superior Cou ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NIKIFOROS P. KALFOUNTZOS, No. 11-15402
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02734-JAM-
EFB
v.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR MEMORANDUM *
COURT; CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Calpers,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 28, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Nikiforos P. Kalfountzos appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action challenging the California Public Employees’ Retirement
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
System’s denial of his application for retirement benefits. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154
(9th Cir. 2003)); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)
(order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Kalfountzos’s action sua sponte as
barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the action is a “forbidden de facto
appeal” of a state court judgment and raises constitutional claims that are
“inextricably intertwined” with the state court judgment. Noel, 341 F.3d at 1158;
see also Elwood v. Drescher, 456 F.3d 943, 948 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[F]ederal courts
must generally address jurisdictional issues first.”).
Kalfountzos’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-15402