Jeffrey Gray Thomas v. Cal. Dep't of Justice

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 8 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JEFFREY GRAY THOMAS, No. 21-55655 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:20-cv-00170-JAK-ADS v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MEMORANDUM * JUSTICE; XAVIER BECERRA; ROSARIO PERRY; NORMAN SOLOMON; HUGH JOHN GIBSON; BIMHF LLC; HOPE PARK LOFTS 2001-02910056 LLC; 1130 HOPE STREET INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, LLC, a California limited liability company; DOES, 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 7, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, O'SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. * 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). Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Jeffrey G. Thomas appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his complaint with prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. See Meland v. WEBER, 2 F.4th 838, 843 (9th Cir. 2021) (dismissal for lack of standing); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Thomas’s federal court challenge to the allegedly erroneous state court sanction judgments. A de facto appeal of a state court ruling is not cognizable in federal court. See Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 2013). The district court properly dismissed Thomas’s taxpayer claims because Thomas’s generalized grievances were insufficient to confer standing. See Western Min. Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 632 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975)). We decline to reconsider our order disbarring Thomas, because he has not shown that he has been restored as a member in good standing of the State Bar of California. See In re Jeffrey Gray Thomas, Case No. 20-80143, Docket Entry No. 13. The motions for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 62, 76, 83, 85, 88) are denied. Thomas’s objections to the supplemental excerpts of record filed by the 2 Solomon appellees (Docket Entry No. 78) are overruled. AFFIRMED. 3