Howard Robert Hofelich v. Barbara Lacy;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HOWARD ROBERT HOFELICH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BARBARA LACY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-16118
D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00037-DKW-
RLP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Howard Hofelich appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims
concerning his property seized pursuant to a state court writ of execution. We have
FILED
SEP 09 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal
under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.
2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hofelich’s action under the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine because the action is a de facto appeal of the state court’s writ of
execution. See id. at 1163-65 (Rooker-Feldman bars de facto appeals of a state
court decision and constitutional claims “inextricably intertwined” with the state
court decision).
The district court properly denied Hofelich’s motions for default judgment
because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
14-16118 2

-- 2 of 2 --