Darrin Black v. Rick Haselton, 663 F. App'x 573

Plaintiffs sued three Oregon Court of Appeals judges, the Oregon Supreme Court justices, and a county circuit court clerk in their official capacities, challenging state appellate action that vacated trial-court judgments previously entered in Plaintiffs’ favor.
Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Due Process and Takings Clauses and sought a declaration that they had constitutionally protected property interests in the trial judgments and that those interests were taken when the appellate court vacated the judgments.
Plaintiffs also sought a writ of mandamus directing the clerk to reinstate the trial-court judgments nunc pro tunc.
Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the Rooker–Feldman doctrine deprived the federal district court of jurisdiction and that Eleventh Amendment and judicial immunity barred the suit; the district court dismissed with prejudice on Rooker–Feldman and judicial immunity grounds.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding Rooker–Feldman barred the suit as a forbidden de facto appeal and that Eleventh Amendment immunity (noting relief sought was retrospective) prevented the suit from proceeding against state officials in their official capacities.
The court also held amendment would be futile and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for judicial notice as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction under Rooker–Feldman	The appellate decision violated federal constitutional rights and federal court can hear those claims	Rooker–Feldman bars federal review of state-court judgments and related claims	Rooker–Feldman bars the suit as a de facto appeal of the state-court decision
Whether Eleventh Amendment bars suit against state officials in official capacity	Plaintiffs seek relief for constitutional violations by state actors	Eleventh Amendment immunizes the State and its officials from such suits; no waiver or congressional abrogation	Eleventh Amendment immunity applies; suit is essentially against the State
Whether Ex parte Young allows prospective relief here	Plaintiffs claim injunction/mandamus remedies suffice to avoid immunity	Relief sought is retrospective (to undo past state-court rulings), so Ex parte Young does not apply	Ex parte Young inapplicable because requested relief is retrospective
Whether dismissal with prejudice and denial of leave to amend was appropriate	Plaintiffs could amend to cure defects	Defects (jurisdictional and sovereign immunity) are incurable	Dismissal with prejudice affirmed; amendment would be futile

O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirmance may be based on any correct ground in the record)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (describing Rooker–Feldman doctrine bar to federal review of state-court judgments)
Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker–Feldman bars claims that arise from alleged erroneous state-court judgments)
Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2004) (de facto appeals via federal suit are barred by Rooker–Feldman)
Olson Farms v. Barbosa, 134 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 1998) (Rooker–Feldman bars suit where injury is a state court’s erroneous jurisdictional determination)
Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (official-capacity suits are treated as suits against the State)
Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) (distinguishing individual-capacity and official-capacity suits)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (allows suits for prospective injunctive relief to end ongoing violations of federal law)
Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (limits on Congress’s ability to abrogate state sovereign immunity)
Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for Rooker–Feldman dismissals)
Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2008) (leave to amend may be denied as futile when defects cannot be cured)