HENDRICK LUCAS V. WAMU MORTGAGE TRUST, ET AL, No. 21-55385 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 20 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HENDRICK LUCAS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-55385 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:20-cv-01366-JGB-KK v. MEMORANDUM* WAMU MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-AR19 TRUST, AKA WAMU 2005-AR19; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 14, 2023** Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Hendrick Lucas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of a foreclosure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a 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). the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Lucas’s action because the action constitutes a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment and raises claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment, and because Lucas did not allege facts sufficient to show that any alleged fraud on the court affected the state court judgments. Id. at 1163-65 (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 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”); Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing the extrinsic fraud exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 21-55385

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.