22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T465,MEMORANDUM John Benjamin Freeman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action alleging extrinsic fraud in connection with prior state court litigation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal, Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Freeman’s action under the Rooker-Feld-mam doctrine because Freeman’s claims based on extrinsic fraud have been raised and rejected in a prior state court action and this action, therefore, amounts to a de facto appeal of that state court judgment. See Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A, 525 F.3d 855, 858-60 (9th Cir.2008) (defining a “de facto appeal” under the Rooker-F eld-man doctrine, and explaining that the doctrine bars a claim of extrinsic fraud if the alleged fraud has been separately litigated in a state action to vacate the purportedly erroneous judgment). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T492,

MEMORANDUM

John Benjamin Freeman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action alleging extrinsic fraud in connection with prior state court litigation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal, Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Freeman’s action under the Rooker-Feld-mam doctrine because Freeman’s claims based on extrinsic fraud have been raised and rejected in a prior state court action and this action, therefore, amounts to a de facto appeal of that state court judgment. See Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A, 525 F.3d 855, 858-60 (9th Cir.2008) (defining a “de facto appeal” under the Rooker-F eld-man doctrine, and explaining that the doctrine bars a claim of extrinsic fraud if the alleged fraud has been separately litigated in a state action to vacate the purportedly erroneous judgment).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.