
    Donald David deROSIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher LONGAKER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-16556.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 2, 2014.
    Donald David deRosier, Carmichael, CA, pro se.
    Kevin W. Reager, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Donald David deRosier, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action arising from a small claims court dispute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or (6). Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 640 F.3d 948, 955 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed deRosier’s action as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the action is “forbidden de facto appeal” of a state court judgment and raises constitutional claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court judgment. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir.2003); Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir.2003) (concluding that the district court lacked jurisdiction where the plaintiff “essentially asked the federal court to review the state court’s denial in a judicial proceeding, and to afford him the same individual remedy he was denied in state court” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)).

Because we affirm on the basis of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, we do not address deRosier’s arguments concerning judicial immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity.

deRosier’s requests, set forth in his opening brief, for a new trial judge on remand and for clarification regarding his ability to recover attorney’s fees are denied.

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