F. DENCER V. CALIFORNIA STATE BAR, No. 16-56771 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FREDERICK TAYTON DENCER, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-56771 D.C. No. 2:16-cv-03190-SVWAJW v. CALIFORNIA STATE BAR; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Frederick Tayton Dencer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from his California State Bar disbarment proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman * 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). doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Dencer’s action is a “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment, and he raises claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. See Scheer v. Kelly, 817 F.3d 1183, 1186 (9th Cir. 2016) (as-applied constitutional claims are barred under the RookerFeldman doctrine); Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 777-79 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars district court from exercising jurisdiction over a “de facto” appeal of a state court decision and claims “inextricably intertwined” with the state court decision); Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (concluding that the 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”). AFFIRMED. 2 16-56771

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.