BILLY EDWARDS V. SUSANA MARTINEZ, No. 17-16544 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BILLY L. EDWARDS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-16544 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00149-RCC v. MEMORANDUM* SUSANA MARTINEZ, Governor, State of New Mexico; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted February 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Billy L. Edwards appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal claims related to a property dispute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). * 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). We affirm. The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Edwards sought review of a prior state court judgment. See id. (the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars de facto appeals of a state court decision); see also Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008) (a de facto appeal is one in which “the adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). A dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004), and thus should be without prejudice, Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm the district court’s dismissal, but remand to the district court with instructions to amend the judgment to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. We lack jurisdiction to consider Edwards’ contentions on behalf of other named plaintiffs because Edwards, who is appearing pro se, may not represent other entities. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions to amend the judgment. 2 17-16544

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.