Frutos
Frutos v. Howe
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Martin Frutos appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging that his ex-wife and other defendants, conspired to violate his constitutional rights and various federal statutes. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Frutos’ claims challenging the state court judgment in his divorce proceedings because such claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Doe v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026 , 1030 (9th Cir.2001) (explaining that Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal courts from exercising jurisdiction “whenever they are in essence being called upon to review the state court decision”).
The district court properly dismissed the action against defendant Gonzalez because court clerks are immune from suit for acts performed in their quasi-judicial capacity. See Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240,1244-45 (9th Cir.1996).
The district court did not err by dismissing as time-barred Frutos’ section 1983…