Billy L. Edwards v. SUSANA MARTINEZ, Governor, State of New Mexico;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BILLY L. EDWARDS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SUSANA MARTINEZ, Governor, State of
New Mexico; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16544
D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00149-RCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Billy L. Edwards appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging federal claims related to a property dispute. 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, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003).
* 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
FEB 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-16544
We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Edwards sought review of
a prior state court judgment. See id. (the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars de facto
appeals of a state court decision); see also Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525
F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008) (a de facto appeal is one in which “the adjudication
of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling” (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted)). A dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a
dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d
1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004), and thus should be without prejudice, Kelly v.
Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm the
district court’s dismissal, but remand to the district court with instructions to
amend the judgment to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Edwards’ contentions on behalf of other
named plaintiffs because Edwards, who is appearing pro se, may not represent
other entities. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th
Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions to amend the judgment.

-- 2 of 2 --