MEMORANDUM **

Armando Gomez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action challenging a state court child custody decision. 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 the 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 fedei’al complaint as a constitutional challenge to the state court[’s] decision!], rather than as a direct appeal of [that decision]”).

AFFIRMED.