Frank McDowell v. State of California

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANK McDOWELL; DEBORAH No. 12-15051
McDOWELL,
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-02569-CRB
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2014**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Frank and Deborah McDowell appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their foreclosure action alleging violations of California state
law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). We
*
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).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for
failure to state a claim, Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616, 619 (9th Cir.
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the McDowells’ claims against the
State of California as barred by Eleventh Amendment because, contrary to their
arguments, Congress has not abrogated that immunity for the claims at issue and
the McDowells do not seek only prospective injunctive relief from a state official.
See Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 517 (2004) (the Eleventh Amendment
renders unconsenting states immune from any suit in federal court unless Congress
abrogates that immunity); Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261,
269 (1997) (suits for prospective declaratory or injunctive relief against state
officials in their individual capacity are a recognized yet narrow exception to the
general prohibition of the Eleventh Amendment).
The district court properly dismissed the McDowells’ claims against the
remaining defendants as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the
McDowells’ state law claims amounted to a forbidden de facto appeal of an
unfavorable California state court judgment, while their new RICO claim was
“inextricably intertwined” with that state-court judgment. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d
1148, 1158, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) (the Rooker Feldman doctrine bars a federal
2 12-15051
plaintiff from complaining of a legal wrong allegedly committed by the state court
or seeking relief from a state court’s judgment, including any issue “inextricably
intertwined” with the state court judgment); see also Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d
772, 778-79 (9th Cir. 2012) (claims are inextricably intertwined under the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine where “‘the relief requested in the federal action would
effectively reverse the state court decision or void its ruling’” (citation omitted)).
The McDowells’ contentions regarding the Martin Act of 1921; the district
court’s alleged denial of their attempts to “release the State from this suit;” and the
alleged treason and other improprieties arising from California’s settlement with
Wells Fargo of claims regarding certain risky mortgages are unpersuasive.
The McDowells’ motions for entry of default judgment against “American
Servicing Company” and NDeX West LLC, submitted with their reply brief, are
denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-15051