O'Connor

O'Connor v. Mosman

Good Law
31 F. App'x 473
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 26, 2002No. 01-56209; D.C. No. CV-00-10604-LGBCalifornia343 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Robert O’Connor appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his complaint against California’s State Teachers’ Retirement System (“STRS”) and related state agencies and officials. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the district court’s dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) de novo, Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

O’Connor is a retired teacher formerly employed by the Los Angeles Unified School District and Los Angeles Community College. He disputed STRS’s calculation of his retirement benefits in a number of actions before California administrative law courts and state courts. When he was *474 unable to obtain the ruling he desired, O’Connor filed a complaint in the Central District of California. The district court dismissed O’Connor’s action on two grounds. First, it concluded that dismissal was appropriate under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Second, it found that the action was barred by res judicata.

Notwithstanding O’Connor’s arguments to the contrary, the district court correctly concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars jurisdiction over this case. The district court could…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.