SAMUEL ROSEN V. BEATRICE NELSON, No. 15-56179 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 30 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS SAMUEL ROSEN, No. 15-56179 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-01669-WQHBGS v. MEMORANDUM* BEATRICE NELSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2015** Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Samuel Rosen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a constitutional violation arising from a state court’s dismissal of his defamation action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Rosen’s action because it is a “forbidden de facto appeal” of the state court’s order granting defendant Nelson’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike and raises claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with the order striking Rosen’s state court complaint. See Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 777, 779 (9th Cir. 2012) (the Rooker–Feldman doctrine “bars a district court from exercising jurisdiction not only over an action explicitly styled as a direct appeal, but also over the ‘de facto equivalent’ of such an appeal,” and explaining when claims are inextricably intertwined (citation omitted)). Rosen’s motion for judicial notice, filed on September 3, 2015, is denied. Rosen’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on September 17, 2015, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 15-56179

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.