Victor M. Samaniego; Bertha Alicia Samaniego v. Law Offices of Les Zieve Et. Al.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR M. SAMANIEGO; BERTHA
ALICIA SAMANIEGO,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
LAW OFFICES OF LES ZIEVE ET. AL.; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-56354
D.C. No. 3:19-cv-01582-TWR-
BGS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Todd W. Robinson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Victor M. Samaniego and Bertha Alicia Samaniego appeal pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law
claims arising from the foreclosure of their home. We have jurisdiction under 28
* 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
AUG 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-56354
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). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Samaniegos’ action because the
action constitutes a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment and
raises claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. 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 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 --