NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAFRON HUOT, No. 18-35130 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00069-BMM v. MEMORANDUM* MONTANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 12, 2018** Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Safron Huot appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related to the termination of her parental rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under * 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).

28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Huot’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Huot’s claims constituted a forbidden de facto appeal of a prior state court judgment or were inextricably intertwined with that judgment. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing proper application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); 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”).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-35130