Robert Johnson v. Sara Di Vittorio
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Robert E. Johnson, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of his prior federal and state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1005 (9th Cir.2011) (statute of limitations); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003) (summary judgment and Rooker-Feldman). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 562 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.
Summary judgment on Johnson’s claims against Judges Hicks and Penoyar was proper because these claims amount to a forbidden de facto appeal of a prior state court judgment. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1164 (explaining that a de facto appeal exists when “a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that decision”). Moreover, the district court properly granted summary judgment on Johnson’s § 1983 claim against Assistant Attorney General Di Vittorio because it is inextricably intertwined with the de facto appeal.