
    Mark MARLOW, husband; Nancy Marlow, wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John HOTCHKISS, in his individual capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-35211
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 23, 2017 
    
    Filed October 30, 2017
    Mark Marlow, Pro Se
    Nancy Marlow, Pro Se
    Heather C. Yakely, Attorney, Evans, Craven & Lackie, P.S., Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appellees John Hotchkiss, Steven M. Clem, Andrew L. Kottkamp, Glen A. de Vreis, Ramon Perez, Mark D. Kulaas, Dale L. Snyder, Ken Stanton, Steven Jenkins, Does 1 Through 10
    Vanessa Ruth Waldref, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSP—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appel-lees Karen M. Urelius, Jerry J. Gregory, Anthony 0. Wright, Bruce ,A- Estok, F. Dale Bambrick
    Carl P. Warring, Assistant Attorney General, Washington State Attorney General’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appellees Eric Pentico, Gary Graff
    Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges,
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mark Marlow and Nancy Marlow appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging various claims related to their real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §' 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Marlows’ action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the claims constituted a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment or were “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. See id. at 1163-65 (discussing proper application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred plaintiffs claim because the relief sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     