JAMES CONERLY, ET AL V. JAMIE DAVENPORT, ET AL, No. 21-17081 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 25 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMES CONERLY; MARILYN TILLMAN-CONERLY, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-17081 D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01600-KJM-KJN Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. JAMIE DAVENPORT; PETER K. SOUTHWORTH; KIVONNE NASH; OFFICIAL PEST PREVENTION, INC.; SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 15, 2022** Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. James Conerly and Marilyn Tillman-Conerly appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal claims arising from state * 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). court small claims proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action because it is a “forbidden de facto appeal” of a state court small claims judgment and raises issues that are “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting claims are “inextricably intertwined” for purposes of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine where “the relief requested in the federal action would effectively reverse the state court decision or void its ruling” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED. 2 21-17081

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.