Samuel O. Gonzalez v. Governor of the State of Washington;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL O. GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-35654
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05242-RBL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Samuel O. Gonzalez appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that state
court judges violated his right to the free exercise of religion by refusing to transfer
FILED
MAY 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-35654 2
his pending felony charges to an ecclesiastical tribunal. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945,
949 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Id.
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gonzalez’s claim against the
Washington Supreme Court because that claim is barred by the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003) (“If a federal
plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court,
and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that decision, Rooker-
Feldman bars subject matter jurisdiction in federal district court.”).
Dismissal of Gonzalez’s claims against the remaining defendants was proper
because those claims also are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See id. at
1158 (where Rooker-Feldman applies, a federal court “must also refuse to decide
any issue raised in the suit that is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with an issue resolved
by the state court in its judicial decision”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --