Unpublished Disposition, 878 F.2d 386 (9th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 878 F.2d 386 (9th Cir. 1989)

t W. LUECK, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Norman ROBISON; Charles Springer, John Mowbray, ThomasSteffen, and E.M. Gunderson, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-1775.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 1989* .Decided June 23, 1989.

Roger D. Foley, District Judge, Presiding.

Before HUG, SCHROEDER, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM*

Robert W. Lueck, an attorney, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against various state court judges for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Lueck sought orders from the district court requiring the Nevada state courts to provide more precise reasons for certain alimony and child support awards and an injunction restraining enforcement of a divorce decree. Lueck contends on appeal that (1) he was denied due process of law in the Nevada courts as a result of the state courts' failure to follow Nevada case law and give sufficient reasons for their decisions, and (2) appeal to the United States Supreme Court is not an adequate remedy because his case probably will not be heard. The judgment is affirmed.

Lueck's complaint seeks review of a state court decision awarding alimony and child support1  and therefore is inextricably intertwined with the state court divorce proceedings. To the extent that Lueck is asking the federal courts to review errors allegedly committed by the state courts, there is no subject matter jurisdiction to hear these claims. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1982); Mackay v. Pfeil, 827 F.2d 540, 543 (9th Cir. 1987). To the extent that Lueck is asking the federal courts to scrutinize the state court's application of state statutes, rules and procedures to his case, the district court again lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his claim. See Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 892 (9th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over these claims and cannot award the relief Lueck has requested. See Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486-87; MacKay, 827 F.2d at 543; McNair, 805 F.2d at 892.

Attorneys' fees shall be assessed against Lueck, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, because the action is meritless in the sense that it is groundless or frivolous. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 561 (1988). Defendants-Appellees shall file affidavits supporting their application for attorneys' fees within 21 days; appellant will have 14 days to respond.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

 1

The valuation of Lueck's professional law practice is now moot because he entered into a settlement with his ex-wife