Timmons

*719 MEMORANDUM **

Keith R. Timmons appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that various attorneys, state judges, state courts, and others violated his civil rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Manufactured Home Communities Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir.2005), and affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

This is an action brought by a “state court loser[ ] complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Ind. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 , 125 S.Ct. 1517 , 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005). The district court did not err when it concluded that Timmons’ first, second and ninth causes of action were “inextricably intertwined” with issues resolved in the state court proceeding and “at least in part a forbidden de facto appeal of a state court judgment,” and were therefore barred by the doctrine of Rooker-Feldman. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1165 (9th Cir.2003). Further, the extrinsic fraud exception is not…