Williams v. Franklin Towers Homeowners Association Inc. , 386 F. App'x 609 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the Matter of: G. GREGORY No. 08-55109
WILLIAMS,
D.C. No. CV-07-06720-ABC
Debtor,
MEMORANDUM *
G. GREGORY WILLIAMS,
Appellant,
v.
FRANKLIN TOWERS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC.; et al.,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
G. Gregory Williams, a Chapter 13 debtor, appeals pro se from the district
court’s order dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his appeal from the
bankruptcy court’s November 29, 2004, and November 30, 2004, orders. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo jurisdictional issues and
the district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court. Mantz v. Cal. State
Bd. of Equalization (In re Mantz), 343 F.3d 1207, 1211 (9th Cir. 2003). We may
affirm on any ground supported by the record. O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr.,
502 F.3d 1056, 1059. We affirm.
Williams’ challenge to the bankruptcy court’s recusal order is barred by the
law of the case doctrine. See Williams v. Gordon, Gaumer, Bovshow, Levi Estates,
LLC (In re Williams), Case No. 06-55435, 234 F. App’x 741, 741-42 (9th Cir.
2007) (affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying recusal); Merritt v. Mackey,
932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (under the law of the case doctrine, one panel
of an appellate court will not reconsider questions that another panel has decided
on a prior appeal in the same case).
As we held previously, In re Williams, 234 F. App’x at 741-42, we lack
jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court’s remand order, see Things
Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 128-29 (1995) (court of appeals does
2 08-55109
not have jurisdiction to review a bankruptcy court’s order remanding a case to state
court).
The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction to review orders issued in state court proceedings. See Reusser v.
Wachovia Bank, N.A, 525 F.3d 855, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The Rooker-Feldman
doctrine is a well-established jurisdictional rule prohibiting federal courts from
exercising appellate review over final state court judgments.”); Dubinka v. Judges
of Sup. Ct., 23 F.3d 218, 221 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Federal district courts may exercise
only original jurisdiction; they may not exercise appellate jurisdiction over state
court decisions.”).
We reject Williams’ remaining contentions.
AFFIRMED.
3 08-55109