Peter Barclay v. State of Oregon , 672 F. App'x 682 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETER BARCLAY, Staff Sergeant, US Air No. 16-35013
Force, Discharged and as Family,
D.C. No. 6:15-cv-01920-MC
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
STATE OF OREGON; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Peter Barclay appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising from an
unfavorable judgment by the Oregon state court in a prior family law action.
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both the
dismissal of an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d
1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998), and under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Noel v. Hall,
341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Barclay’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it amounted to a
forbidden “de facto appeal” of a state court judgment and raised claims that were
“inextricably intertwined” with that state court judgment. See Noel, 341 F.3d at
1163-65. We reject as without merit Barclay’s contentions regarding the
applicability of exceptions to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
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.
2 16-35013