Volney

Volney v. Superior Court

Good Law
114 F. App'x 944
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 15, 2004No. 03-56409; D.C. No. CV-03-01036-NAJCalifornia272 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ** *945 jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Olson Farms, Inc. v. Barbosa, 134 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir.1998), and for abuse of discretion the entry of a vexatious litigant order. De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144,1146 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.

*944 Robert Volney appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for lack of subject matter

*945 Volney’s complaint asserted claims challenging the execution of a writ of possession of residential property in his mother’s estate. These claims were previously considered and ruled upon by the California Superior Court. Consequently, the district court properly dismissed Volney’s action because it challenged a final state court determination, and raised federal constitutional claims that were “inextricably intertwined” with those state court judgments. See Doe & Assocs. Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026 , 1029 (9th Cir.2001).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by entering the vexatious litigant order against Volney because the court provided Volney notice and an opportunity to be heard…

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.