HOWARD HOFELICH V. BARBARA LACY, No. 14-16118 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED SEP 09 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HOWARD ROBERT HOFELICH, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 14-16118 D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00037-DKWRLP v. MEMORANDUM* BARBARA LACY; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2015** Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Howard Hofelich appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims concerning his property seized pursuant to a state court writ of execution. We have * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Hofelich’s action under the RookerFeldman doctrine because the action is a de facto appeal of the state court’s writ of execution. See id. at 1163-65 (Rooker-Feldman bars de facto appeals of a state court decision and constitutional claims “inextricably intertwined” with the state court decision). The district court properly denied Hofelich’s motions for default judgment because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action. All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 14-16118
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.
