Anthony Jackson v. County of Maricopa

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY DEAN JACKSON, No. 15-15061
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01293-ESW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF MARICOPA; MARICOPA
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, named as:
Maricopa Superior Court,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Eileen S. Willett, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted September 13, 2016***
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Anthony Dean Jackson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismissing his action alleging claims arising from defendants’ allegedly wrongful
conduct leading to his 1996 criminal conviction and defendants’ continued
recognition of that conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jackson’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, because Jackson failed to allege facts sufficient to show that
diversity jurisdiction exists. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp.,
385 F.3d 1177, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under
§ 1332). Further, to the extent that Jackson alleged claims arising from
constitutional errors by the Maricopa County Superior Court during his criminal
prosecution, these claims are barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because
they constitute a “de facto appeal” of the criminal conviction or are “inextricably
intertwined” with that conviction. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154-57 (9th
Cir. 2003) (discussing 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 the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”).
2 15-15061
We do not consider any claims that Jackson did not properly raise before the
district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Jackson’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on December 18, 2015,
and motions to dismiss, filed on March 11, 2016, and August 26, 2016, are denied.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Jackson’s motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(3),
filed on April 21, 2016. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-15061