
    Brian CARR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of OREGON; City of Portland; Linda Meng, in her official capacity as City Attorney of the City of Portland; Hardy Myers, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Oregon, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-35902.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 11, 2011.
    
    Filed Sept. 6, 2011.
    Brian Carr, Vancouver, WA, pro se.
    Matthew Jason Lysne, Assistant Attorney General, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, Harry Auerbach, Chief Deputy City, Office of the City Attorney, Portland, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Brian P. Carr appeals pro se from the district court’s decision dismissing his action as barred by the statute of limitations and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003), we affirm.

Carr’s complaint in the district court seeks to overturn the state court’s refusal to seal his arrest record. His suit is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. “If a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that decision, Rooker-Feldman bars subject matter jurisdiction in federal district court.” Id. at 1164; Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 891 (9th Cir.1986).

Carr also challenges the district court’s refusal to allow him leave to file an amended complaint. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Planned Parenthood v. Neely, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir.1997), we affirm. Carr’s proposed amended complaint sought to introduce a “separate, distinct and new cause of action,” id. (internal quotations and citations omitted), and the district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.

Carr’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     