
    George A. MCKRAY; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-15121.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 21, 2010.
    George A. McKray, Law Office of George A. McKray, Alameda, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Thomas A. Blake, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of The California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellants’ request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

George A. McKray and Anthony Lam-perti appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging violations of their federal constitutional rights in connection with unpublished decisions by the California Courts of Appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003) (reviewing dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Schmier v. U.S. Ct. of App. for the Ninth Cir., 279 F.3d 817, 820 (9th Cir.2002) (reviewing questions of standing). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed as barred by the Roolcer-Feldman doctrine the claims that sought review and remand of final California Courts of Appeal decisions. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1164 (“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.”).

The district court properly dismissed for lack of standing the remaining claims challenging a court rule regarding unpublished decisions. See Schmier, 279 F.3d at 820-21 (stating that a plaintiff must allege an injury capable of redress to establish standing).

Appellants’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Appellants’ request to submit further briefing is denied.

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