Martin Reiner v. State of California

MEMORANDUM

Martin Reiner, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with sanctions he received in a state administrative proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, even if not relied upon by the district court. Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 329 F.3d 1089 , 1097 (9th Cir.2003). We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under the Rooker-Feld-man doctrine, Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Claims 4 and 5 of Reiner’s complaint as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because they constituted de facto appeals of prior state court decisions and raised claims inextricably intertwined with the state court decisions. See id. at 1163-65 (Rooker-Feldman bars de facto appeals of a state court decision and constitutional claims “inextricably intertwined” with the state court decision); see also Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir.2008) (a de facto appeal is one in which “the adjudication of the federal claims…