James Conerly; Marilyn Tillman-Conerly v. Jamie Davenport

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES CONERLY; MARILYN
TILLMAN-CONERLY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
JAMIE DAVENPORT; PETER K.
SOUTHWORTH; KIVONNE NASH;
OFFICIAL PEST PREVENTION, INC.;
SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO
COUNTY,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-17081
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01600-KJM-KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
James Conerly and Marilyn Tillman-Conerly appeal pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal claims arising from state
* 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
NOV 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-17081
court small claims proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir.
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action because it is a
“forbidden de facto appeal” of a state court small claims judgment and raises issues
that are “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d
1148, 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see
also Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting claims are
“inextricably intertwined” for purposes of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine where “the
relief requested in the federal action would effectively reverse the state court
decision or void its ruling” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --