Joel Beck v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOEL BECK, No. 23-15203 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00225-MMD-CLB v. MEMORANDUM* NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, DBA Mr. Cooper; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee Securitized Trust Structured; FIRST AMERICAN TRUSTEE SERVICING SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2024** Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Joel Beck appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging a due process claim arising from state court proceedings. We have * 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). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Beck’s action as barred by the Rooker- Feldman doctrine because it amounted to a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment and raised a constitutional claim that was “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. See id. at 1163-65 (discussing proper application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Benavidez v. County of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies even where the challenge to the state court decision involves federal constitutional issues); Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 860 (9th Cir. 2008) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars a claim of extrinsic fraud if the alleged fraud has been separately litigated in a state action). 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 requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 23-15203