MEMORANDUM **

Freddie Fletcher, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging on constitutional grounds a final judgment rendered against him by the California Supreme 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.

Fletcher contends that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine should not apply because the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and rendered a void judgment. We disagree. See Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038, 1043 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Rooker-Feldman applies where the plaintiff in federal court claims that the state court did not have jurisdiction to render a judgment.”). The district court properly concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Fletcher’s action because it is a “forbidden de facto appeal from a judicial decision of a state court,” and raises constitutional claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with that prior state court decision. Noel, 341 F.3d. at 1158.

AFFIRMED.