Phan v. County of Orange

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 29 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TIN PHAN, No. 23-2948 D.C. No. 8:23-cv-00374-JWH-KES Petitioner - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF ORANGE; SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John W. Holcomb, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 22, 2025** Before: CLIFTON, CALLAHAN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Tin Phan appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action seeking to confirm an arbitration award regarding the custody of his minor child. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for * 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). 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 Phan’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Phan’s claims are a “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment or are “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. See id. at 1163 (“It is a forbidden de facto appeal under Rooker– Feldman when the plaintiff in federal district court complains of a legal wrong allegedly committed by the state court, and seeks relief from the judgment of that court.”); 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)). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). County of Orange’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 14) is granted. Phan’s request for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied. All other pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 23-2948