Geneva Langworthy v. Superior Court for Whatcom County

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GENEVA LANGWORTHY, No. 22-35397 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01615-RAJ v. MEMORANDUM* SUPERIOR COURT FOR WHATCOM COUNTY; GEORGE ROCHE, Senior Civil Prosecuting Attorney, Whatcom County; DISTRICT COURT FOR WHATCOM COUNTY; WASHINGTON STATE COURT OF APPEALS, DIVISION I, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 12, 2023** Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Geneva Langworthy appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with * 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). Disabilities Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Langworthy’s claims against the Whatcom County District Court and Superior Court and the Washington Court of Appeals because Langworthy’s action constitutes a forbidden “de facto appeal” of prior state court judgments and raises claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with those judgments. Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163-65 (discussing proper application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also 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)). The district court properly dismissed Langworthy’s claims against George Roche as barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity. See Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 126 (1997) (explaining when prosecutorial immunity applies). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review 2 22-35397 and explaining that leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be futile). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Langworthy’s motions for appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review). AFFIRMED. 3 22-35397