Sherif Philips v. Judiciary of Guam

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 4 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHERIF A. PHILIPS, No. 22-16919 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00014 v. MEMORANDUM* JUDICIARY OF GUAM, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Guam Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 18, 2023** Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Sherif A. Philips appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims arising out of prior litigation. 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 * 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). (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Philips’s action because the action constitutes a forbidden “de facto appeal” of prior state court and Guam Superior Court judgments and raises claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with those judgments. See id. at 1163-65 (discussing proper application of the Rooker- Feldman doctrine); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (explaining that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments”). 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). AFFIRMED. 2 22-16919