Robert J. Kulick v. Leisure Village Association, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT J. KULICK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LEISURE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION,
INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-55904
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-03392-PA-SS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Robert J. Kulick appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging civil rights violations 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, 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
OCT 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-55904
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine because Kulick’s action is a “de facto appeal”
of a prior state court judgment, and he raises claims that are “inextricably
intertwined” with that judgment. 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); see 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 --