Belcher v. Bonta

── Belcher v. Bonta ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 27, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTHONY D. BELCHER Sr., No. 25-1657 D.C. No. 2:24-cv-00976-DAD-JDP Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* ROB BONTA; LAURIE M. EARL; SEBASTIAN BRADY; JENNIFER K. ROCKWELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 26, 2026** Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Anthony D. Belcher, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations relating to his sex offender registry requirement, which he unsuccessfully challenged in state * 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). court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Seismic Reservoir 2020, Inc. v. Paulsson, 785 F.3d 330, 333 (9th Cir. 2015) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Belcher’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Belcher’s action is a de facto appeal of a prior state court judgment, and he raises claims that are inextricably intertwined with that judgment. See Noel, 341 F.3d 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.”); 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)). The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Belcher’s complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile). 2 25-1657 All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 25-1657