Mark Marlow, husband; NANCY MARLOW, wife v. John Hotchkiss, in his individual capacity;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK MARLOW, husband; NANCY
MARLOW, wife,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
JOHN HOTCHKISS, in his individual
capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-35211
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00131-TOR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Thomas O. Rice, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Mark Marlow and Nancy Marlow appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their action alleging various claims related to their real
property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
* 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).
FILED
OCT 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-35211
dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154
(9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Marlows’ action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the claims
constituted a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment or were
“inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. See id. at 1163-65 (discussing
proper application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs v. Valley
View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred
plaintiff’s claim because the relief sought “would require the district court to
determine that the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --