NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHARLES PHILLIP MEEK, No. 17-35258 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:17-cv-00227-SB v. MEMORANDUM* JENICE ZOPAN, Probation Officer, Klamath County Community Corrections; et al., Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 15, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Charles Phillip Meek appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

* 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). de novo a dismissal under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Meek’s claims stemming from a prior state civil action as barred by the Rooker–Feldman doctrine because Meek’s claims constitute a “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment, and are “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. See id. at 1155-56 (the Rooker–Feldman doctrine bars de facto appeals of a state court decision); see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker–Feldman doctrine barred plaintiff’s claim because the relief sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”).

To the extent that Meek’s claims are not barred by Rooker–Feldman, the district court properly dismissed these claims as Heck-barred, as success on these claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of Meek’s conviction, and Meek has failed to allege that his conviction has been invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).

AFFIRMED.

2 17-35258