Opinion
No. 15-15061
09-19-2016
ANTHONY DEAN JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF MARICOPA; MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, named as: Maricopa Superior Court, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01293-ESW MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Eileen S. Willett, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Anthony Dean Jackson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging claims arising from defendants' allegedly wrongful conduct leading to his 1996 criminal conviction and defendants' continued recognition of that conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jackson's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because Jackson failed to allege facts sufficient to show that diversity jurisdiction exists. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332). Further, to the extent that Jackson alleged claims arising from constitutional errors by the Maricopa County Superior Court during his criminal prosecution, these claims are barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because they constitute a "de facto appeal" of the criminal conviction or are "inextricably intertwined" with that conviction. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154-57 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred plaintiff's claim because the relief sought "would require the district court to determine the state court's decision was wrong and thus void").
We do not consider any claims that Jackson did not properly raise before the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Jackson's motion for appointment of counsel, filed on December 18, 2015, and motions to dismiss, filed on March 11, 2016, and August 26, 2016, are denied. We lack jurisdiction to consider Jackson's motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(3), filed on April 21, 2016. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257.
AFFIRMED.