SAFRON HUOT V. MONTANA CFSD, No. 18-35129 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUN 19 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAFRON HUOT, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-35129 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00059-BMM v. MEMORANDUM* MONTANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 12, 2018** Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Safron Huot appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related to the termination of her parental rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under * 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). 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Huot’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Huot’s claims constituted a forbidden de facto appeal of a prior state court judgment or were inextricably intertwined with that judgment. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing proper application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also 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 that the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”). AFFIRMED. 2 18-35129

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.