Burgess
Burgess v. California
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Reginald P. Burgess appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action alleging that defendants violated federal and state law in the course of challenging Burgess’ ownership of a house in state probate and federal bankruptcy proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir.2004) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Vestar Dev. II, LLC v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 249 F.3d 958, 960 (9th Cir.2001) (dismissal for failure to state a claim). We affirm.
Contrary to Burgess’ contention, the district court was not precluded from applying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to his civil rights action because it was not a bankruptcy appeal stemming from a “core” function of Chapter 11. See Gruntz v. County of Los Angeles, 202 F.3d 1074, 1082-83 (9th Cir.2000).
The district court properly determined that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Burgess’ claim that the State of California and its court system failed to enforce provisions of state probate law that would have changed the outcome of his probate court proceedings. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163 (9th…