Albrecht

MEMORANDUM **

Nikolaus Albrecht appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action challenging his alleged disbarment from the practice of law in Oregon state court, Oregon federal district court, and this court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003), and we consider sua sponte Article III standing, Pritikin v. Dep’t of Energy, 254 F.3d 791 , 796 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court properly concluded that the Roolcer-Feldman doctrine barred the claims challenging Albrecht’s disbarment by the Oregon Supreme Court because those claims are a “de facto appeal” of a state court decision, and raise constitutional claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with that prior state court decision. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1158 ; Mothershed v. Justices of the Supreme Court, 410 F.3d 602, 607-08 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review state disciplinary proceedings against attorney).

Albrecht lacks standing to sue defendants for his disbarment by federal courts because…