Blount v. Contra Costa County Superior Court - Office of Family Court Services

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 30 2026

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALIVIA BLOUNT, No. 25-2401

D.C. No. 4:25-cv-02211-JSW Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - OFFICE OF FAMILY COURT SERVICES; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; GINA DASHMAN, Judge; COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 29, 2026**

Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and MENDOZA, JR., Circuit Judges.

Alivia Blount appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations during state family

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Blount’s action as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the claims are a “de facto appeal” of a state court decision or are “inextricably intertwined” with that decision. Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163-66 (discussing proper application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 782 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that claims are “inextricably intertwined” with state court decisions where federal adjudication “would impermissibly undercut the state ruling on the same issues” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Blount’s complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and stating that dismissal without leave to amend is proper where amendment would be futile).

AFFIRMED.

2 25-2401