Unpublished Disposition, 908 F.2d 976 (9th Cir. 1990)

Nos. 89-55380, 89-55547, 89-55755.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Before JAMES R. BROWNING and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAM P. COPPLE, District Judge^* 

Ash seeks review of the District Court's decision to dismiss his action and deny a preliminary injunction against the California State court of appeal. The District Court based its dismissal on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied the preliminary injunction because the requisite elements were not established. Cross-appellants Byrne and Stern seek review of the District Court's denial of their request for attorneys' fees and sanctions under Rule 11. Ash seeks to have the reply briefs of Byrne and Stern stricken and sanctions imposed.

The District Court correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction over Ash's claim. 28 U.S.C. Section 1257(a) (Supp.1990) (If a title, right, privilege, or immunity is claimed under the U.S. Constitution, the final judgment or decree of a state court may be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court); Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 484-86 (1983) (stating that the United States district courts have no jurisdiction over challenges to state court decisions); Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a state court judgment and that the proper procedure was to obtain review in the United States Supreme Court). The District Court properly denied the preliminary injunction because the requisite elements were not established and because it lacked jurisdiction.

The District Court's denial of defendants' request for attorneys' fees and for Rule 11 sanctions was appropriate because there was nothing within the pleadings and record before the Court that indicated that the District Court abused its discretion in denying fees and Rule 11 sanctions.

This Court finds plaintiff's Motion to strike the reply brief of Byrne; strike all references by defendants to join in Stern's appeal brief; strike Stern's reply brief; and, impose sanctions upon Stern and Byrne meritless.

Accordingly, Ash's motion to strike Byrne's reply brief, strike Stern's reply brief and portions of the defendants' brief, and to impose sanctions is denied. The District Court's dismissal of Ash's action on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction, its denial of the preliminary injunction and its denial of defendants' request for attorneys' fees and Rule 11 sanctions are affirmed.