NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 8 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEFFREY GRAY THOMAS, No. 21-55655

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:20-cv-00170-JAK-ADS v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MEMORANDUM *

JUSTICE; XAVIER BECERRA; ROSARIO

PERRY; NORMAN SOLOMON; HUGH

JOHN GIBSON; BIMHF LLC; HOPE

PARK LOFTS 2001-02910056 LLC; 1130

HOPE STREET INVESTMENT

ASSOCIATES, LLC, a California limited liability company; DOES, 1 through 10 inclusive,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 7, 2023** San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, O'SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Jeffrey G. Thomas appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing

his complaint with prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo. See Meland v. WEBER, 2 F.4th 838, 843 (9th Cir. 2021)

(dismissal for lack of standing); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003)

(dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,

Thomas’s federal court challenge to the allegedly erroneous state court sanction

judgments. A de facto appeal of a state court ruling is not cognizable in federal

court. See Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 2013).

The district court properly dismissed Thomas’s taxpayer claims because

Thomas’s generalized grievances were insufficient to confer standing. See

Western Min. Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 632 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Warth v.

Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975)).

We decline to reconsider our order disbarring Thomas, because he has not

shown that he has been restored as a member in good standing of the State Bar of

California. See In re Jeffrey Gray Thomas, Case No. 20-80143, Docket Entry No.

13.

The motions for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 62, 76, 83, 85, 88) are

denied. Thomas’s objections to the supplemental excerpts of record filed by the

2 Solomon appellees (Docket Entry No. 78) are overruled.

AFFIRMED.

3