Charles Phillip Meek v. JENICE ZOPAN, Probation Officer, Klamath County Community Corrections;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES PHILLIP MEEK,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
JENICE ZOPAN, Probation Officer,
Klamath County Community Corrections; et
al.,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 17-35258
D.C. No. 6:17-cv-00227-SB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Charles Phillip Meek appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from
state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
* 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
MAY 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-35258
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 Meek’s claims stemming from a prior
state civil action as barred by the Rooker–Feldman doctrine because Meek’s claims
constitute a “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment, and are “inextricably
intertwined” with that judgment. See id. at 1155-56 (the Rooker–Feldman doctrine
bars de facto appeals of a state court decision); see also Henrichs v. Valley View
Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker–Feldman doctrine 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”).
To the extent that Meek’s claims are not barred by Rooker–Feldman, the
district court properly dismissed these claims as Heck-barred, as success on these
claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of Meek’s conviction, and Meek has
failed to allege that his conviction has been invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --