
    Michael HUCUL, a Father with joint custody of his child or children, on behalf of himself and those like him and as a parent with joint custody of their child or children, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-55192
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 20, 2017
    Michael Hucul, Pro Se
    Glen Frederick Dorgan, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Fresno, CA, for Defendants-Appellees U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Gary Peters, Debbie Stabenow, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer
    Julie T. Trinh, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the Attorney General (San Diego) San Diego, CA, Joseph Froehlich, Esquire, Michagan Department of Attorney General, Lansing, MI, for Defendant-Appellee Richard D. Snyder
    Julie T. Trinh, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the Attorney General (San Diego) San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees State of California, Edmund G. Brown
    Sarah E. Clouse, Staff Attorney, U.S. House of Representatives, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees Mike Bishop, Darrell Issa
    Bety Javidzad, Attorney, Eric J. Bake-well, Attorney, Venable LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees American Bar Association, Paulette Brown
    Bonnie Toskey, Cohl Stoker & Toskey, Lansing, MI, for Defendants-Appellees Ingham County, State Bar of Michigan, Lori A. Buiteweg, R. George Economy
    Erica R. Cortez, Office of County Counsel, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appel-lee San Diego County
    
      Matthew L. Green, Best Best & Krieger LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee Michael D. Washington
    Betsy S. Kimball, Esquire, Attorney, Natalie P. Vance, Attorney, Gregory T. Fayard, Klinedinst PC, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Kronzek & Cronright, PLLC, Charles M. Kronzek
    Jeremy Martin, Law Office of Jeremy Martin, APC, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Jeremy Martin
    Steven M. Bishop, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Steven M. Bishop, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Law Office of Steven M. Bishop
    Alan Gregory Ridenour, Attorney, Ri-denour Law Office, La Mesa, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Law & Mediation Firm of Klueck & Hoppes, APC, Garrison Klueck, Jeff Miller, Traci Hoppes
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, 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

Michael Hucul appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 949 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hucul’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Hucul’s action constituted a forbidden “de facto” appeal of prior state court orders. See Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 777-78, 781 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives federal district courts of jurisdiction to hear direct and “de facto” appeals from state courts, including a federal complaint that is “frame[d] ... as a constitutional challenge to the state court[’s] decision[]” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that Rook-er-Feldman doctrine barred plaintiffs claim because alleged legal injuries arose from the “state court’s purportedly erroneous judgment” and the relief sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”).

Contrary to Hucul’s contention, the extrinsic fraud exception.to the Rooker-Feld-man doctrine does not apply because Hu-cul did not allege any facts showing that any adverse party prevented him from presenting his claims in state court. See Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply if extrinsic fraud prevented a party from presenting his claim in state court).

We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

Hon. Michael D. Washington’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 41) is granted.

Hucul’s motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 75) is denied.

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