Carl Thompson v. Marjorie Allard

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 30 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARL THOMPSON, No. 22-35892

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00075-SLG-KFR v. MARJORIE K. ALLARD, Judge; Chief MEMORANDUM* Judge of the Alaska Court of Appeals; TRACEY WOLLENBERG, Judge; Judge of the Alaska Court of Appeals; TIMOTHY W.

TERRELL, Judge; Judge Sitting by Designation on the Alaska Court of Appeals,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska

Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Alaska state prisoner Carl Thompson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims arising out of

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Thompson’s action because it was a forbidden de facto appeal of a prior state court judgment. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard for review and explaining that leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be futile).

AFFIRMED.

2 22-35892