Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2009

Sareen v. Sareen

Sareen v. Sareen
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided December 14, 2009 · Alarcón, Tashima, Trott
356 F. App'x 977

Counsel

Vikas Sareen, Fresh Meadows, NY, pro se., Richard Charles Miadich, Olson Hagel & Fishburn LLP, Jeri Lynn Pappone, Lon-gyear O’Dea and Lavra, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Sareen v. Sareen

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Vikas Sareen, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his child custody proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Vikas Sareen’s action because it is a “forbidden de facto appeal” of a state court decision, and raises constitutional claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with that prior state court decision. Id. at 1158; see also Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 900 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, “[i]t is immaterial that [the plaintiff] frames his federal complaint as a constitutional challenge to the state eourt[’s] decision[], rather than as a direct appeal of [that decision]”).

Appellant’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.