
    Robert H. GRUNDSTEIN, Esquire, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON STATE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-35697.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 29, 2014.
    Robert H. Grundstein, Esquire, Morris-ville, VT, pro se.
    Rene Tomisser, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General Office, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert H. Grundstein, a disbarred Washington attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C § 1983 action arising from a pri- or state court action concerning his deceased mother’s estate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Canatella v. California, 304 F.3d 843, 852 (9th Cir.2002) (dismissal for lack of standing); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003) (dismissal under Rook-er-Feldman doctrine). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed for lack of standing Grundstein’s general challenge to the constitutionality of the state court rule regarding unpublished opinions. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (constitutional standing requires an “injury in fact,” causation, and redressability); Canatella, 304 F.3d at 852 (“In the particular context of injunctive and declaratory relief, a plaintiff must show that he has suffered or is threatened with a concrete and particularized legal harm, ... coupled with a sufficient likelihood that he will again be wronged in a similar way.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

To the extent that Grundstein also challenges the state court judgment, and the constitutionality of the state court rule regarding unpublished opinions as applied in that action, the district court properly dismissed under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because those claims amount to a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a state court judgment and raise constitutional claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with that state court judgment. Noel, 341 F.3d at 1158.

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