MARVIN CARRERA V. RHONDA FORSBERG, No. 21-16582 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 15 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARVIN CARRERA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-16582 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 2:20-cv-02138-GMN-EJY MEMORANDUM* RHONDA K. FORSBERG, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 8, 2022** Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Marvin Carrera appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging various federal claims arising from state court child custody proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011) * 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). (dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under Rooker-Feldman doctrine). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Carrera’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it was a “forbidden de facto appeal” of a prior state court decision and raised issues that were “inextricably intertwined” with that decision. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163-65 (discussing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (explaining that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is limited to “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments”); Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 782 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that claims are “inextricably intertwined” with state court decisions where federal adjudication “would impermissibly undercut the state ruling on the same issues” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 21-16582

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.