DEAN PHILLIPS V. BETH RIETEMA, No. 16-36074 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 9 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEAN ERVIN PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-36074 D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05000-BHS v. MEMORANDUM* BETH RENEE RIETEMA; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Dean Ervin Phillips appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment and dismissal orders his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel * 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). v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Phillips’s claims stemming from his prior state civil actions as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because these claims constitute a “de facto appeal” of prior state court judgments, or are “inextricably intertwined” with those judgments. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1155-56 (the Rooker–Feldman doctrine bars de facto appeals of a state court decision); see also Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 782-83 (9th Cir. 2012) (concluding plaintiff’s claim for conspiracy was “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s decision); Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred plaintiff’s claim because the relief sought “would require the district court to determine the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”). Dismissal of Phillips’s claims stemming from prior state criminal actions was proper because these claims are Heck-barred, as success on these claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, and Phillips has failed to allege that his conviction has been invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). To the extent that Phillips’s conspiracy claim is not barred by Rooker- 2 16-36074 Feldman or Heck, dismissal of Phillips’s conspiracy claim was proper because Phillips failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible civil conspiracy claim. See Woodrum v. Woodward County, Okla., 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1989) (§ 1983 conspiracy requires more than conclusory allegations). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Phillips’s “urgent motion for summary disposition” (Docket Entry No. 35) is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 16-36074
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.
