Robert O. Lindow v. Darren Wallace, an individual;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT O. LINDOW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DARREN WALLACE, an individual; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15810
D.C. No. 4:20-cv-03271-HSG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Robert O. Lindow appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from
conservatorship proceedings in state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.
* 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
APR 20 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-15810
2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154
(9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under Rooker-Feldman doctrine). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lindow’s § 1983 claims seeking to
reopen or set aside California state court rulings because these claims constitute a
forbidden “de facto appeal” of prior state court judgments and raise issues that are
“inextricably intertwined” with those judgments. Noel, 341 F.3d at 1158, 1163-65
(discussing proper application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine).
The district court properly dismissed Lindow’s § 1983 claims alleging
extrinsic fraud on the courts because Lindow failed to allege facts sufficient to
show that defendants acted under color of state law. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Lugar v.
Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 941 (1982) (explaining that private misuse
or violation of a state statute is not actionable under § 1983); Kirtley v. Rainey, 326
F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing the criteria applied by courts to
identify state action).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Lindow’s
amended complaint without further leave to amend because amendment would
have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-15810
1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal
without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --