David Telstar, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Kathryn Vea; Mary Rosa; Robert Wandruff; State Ofcalifornia, Defendants-appellees, 99 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 1996)

MEMORANDUM^** 

David Telstar appeals pro se the district court's orders denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) in Telstar's action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Telstar's First Amended Complaint¹  challenges the constitutionality of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1030 as applied during Superior Court divorce proceedings during which Telstar sought to set aside a default judgment against him. Telstar asserts that the Superior Court's order requiring him to post security pursuant to Section 1030 in the amount of $5,000 denied him meaningful access to the courts, equal protection, and due process of law, in violation of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Because Telstar's claims are " 'inextricably intertwined' with the state court's rulings in a particular plaintiff's state case," Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, 23 F.3d 218, 221-22 (9th Cir. 1994), the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983). The district court therefore properly denied Telstar leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to Section 1915(d).

AFFIRMED.²