Dorothy Lewis v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOROTHY ELIZABETH LEWIS, No. 23-35223 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-01540-IM District of Oregon, v. Portland WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee MEMORANDUM* for the Registered Holders of Structured Asset Securities Corporation Mortgage Pass- Through Certificate, Series 2007-OSI ("the Trust"); PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, successor by merger to Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Karin J. Immergut, District Judge Submitted August 26, 2026** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Dorothy Lewis appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of her

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. complaint against Wells Fargo Bank N.A. and PHH Mortgage Corp. alleging violations of her First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights during a 2013 foreclosure action in which Wells Fargo obtained a judgment against her. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman1 doctrine de novo and dismissal without leave to amend for an abuse of discretion. Benavidez v. Cnty. of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1141-42 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Lewis sought to overturn a state court foreclosure judgment.

See Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that federal district courts lack appellate jurisdiction over state court judgments).

The exception for extrinsic fraud does not apply because Lewis’s fraud allegations were presented to and rejected by the Oregon state court. Id. at 860.

The district court acted within its discretion when it dismissed the complaint without allowing leave to amend. Amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that “a district court may dismiss without leave where a plaintiff's proposed amendments would fail to cure the pleading deficiencies and amendment would be futile”).

AFFIRMED.