ROBERT KULICK V. LEISURE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, No. 18-55904 (9th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 29 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT J. KULICK, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-55904 D.C. No. 2:18-cv-03392-PA-SS v. MEMORANDUM* LEISURE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 22, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Robert J. Kulick appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging civil rights violations 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 v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). * 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). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine because Kulick’s action is a “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment, and he raises claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 782 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rooker–Feldman doctrine barred claim that was “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s decision); see Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (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 18-55904

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.