FARZANA SHEIKH V. LESLIEY HOLLAND, No. 16-15692 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 20 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FARZANA SHEIKH, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15692 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01773-TLN-AC v. MEMORANDUM* LESLIEY D. HOLLAND, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Court; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Farzana Sheikh, M.D., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with her state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. * 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). Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Sheikh’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because her claims constituted a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing application of RookerFeldman doctrine); see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred plaintiff’s claim because alleged legal injuries arose from the “state court’s purportedly erroneous judgment” and the relief sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 16-15692

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.