Gregory Garmong v. Nevada Supreme Court;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY GARMONG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NEVADA SUPREME COURT; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-15715
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00718-APG-VCF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Gregory Garmong appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising from state
court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148,
* 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). Garmong’s request for oral
argument, set forth in the reply brief, is denied.
FILED
FEB 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-15715
1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Garmong’s action as barred by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Garmong’s action is a “de facto appeal” of prior
state court judgments, and raises claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with
those judgments. See Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 782 (9th Cir. 2012)
(Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred claim that was “inextricably intertwined” with
the state court’s decision); Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th
Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred plaintiff’s claim because alleged legal
injuries arose from the “state court’s purportedly erroneous judgment” and 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 --