Safron Huot v. Montana Cfsd

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAFRON HUOT, No. 18-35130
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00069-BMM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MONTANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Safron Huot appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related to the termination of her parental
rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under
*
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).
28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal
under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194
(9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Huot’s action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Huot’s claims constituted
a forbidden de facto appeal of a prior state court judgment or were inextricably
intertwined with that judgment. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003)
(discussing proper application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs
v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine
barred plaintiff’s claim because the relief sought “would require the district court
to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-35130