Hucul v. County of San Diego, 061819 FED9, 18-55354

Docket Nº:18-55354
Party Name:MICHAEL HUCUL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:June 18, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

MICHAEL HUCUL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-55354

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

June 18, 2019

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted June 11, 2019 [**]

Appeal from the United States District Court No. 3:17-cv-01531-JLS-DHB for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Michael Hucul appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging a violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act ("RFPA"). 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).

We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hucul's action as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it is a de facto appeal of prior state court decisions and raises claims that are inextricably intertwined with state court decisions. See id. at 1163-65 (Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars de facto appeals of a state court decision and claims "inextricably intertwined" with the state court decision); see also Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008) (a de facto appeal is one in which "the adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling or require the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP