MEMORANDUM **

Nikiforos P. Kalfountzos appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action challenging the California Public Employees’ Retirement System’s denial of his application for retirement benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kalfountzos’s action sua sponte as barred by the Roolcer-Feldman doctrine because the action is a “forbidden de facto appeal” of a state court judgment and raises constitutional claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court judgment. Noel, 341 F.3d at 1158; see also Elwood v. Drescher, 456 F.3d 943, 948 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[Fjederal courts must generally address jurisdictional issues first.”).

Kalfountzos’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.