Phillips

MEMORANDUM **

David Phillips, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging civil rights violations arising out of an action he brought in state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s jurisdictional dismissal based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The district court properly concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Phillips’s action as to the non-judicial defendants because it is a “forbidden de facto appeal” of state court proceedings, and raises constitutional claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with those prior state court decisions. Id. at 1158 .

The district court should also have relied on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, rather than judicial immunity, to dismiss the claims against the judicial defendants. See Elwood v. Drescher, 456 F.3d 943, 948 (9th Cir.2006) (“federal courts must generally address jurisdictional issues first”); Mothershed v. Justices of the Supreme Court, 410 F.3d 602 , 607 n. 4 (9th Cir.2005) (explaining that where “the subject matter…