NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL HUCUL, No. 18-55354 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-01531-JLS-DHB v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 11, 2019** Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Michael Hucul appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging a violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act (“RFPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003).

* 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).

We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hucul’s action as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it is a de facto appeal of prior state court decisions and raises claims that are inextricably intertwined with state court decisions. See id. at 1163-65 (Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars de facto appeals of a state court decision and claims “inextricably intertwined” with the state court decision); see also Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008) (a de facto appeal is one in which “the adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling or require the district court to interpret the application of state laws or procedural rules” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)) Appellee Griffin’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 13) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 18-55354