MEMORANDUM **
Victor M. Samaniego and Bertha Alicia Samaniego appeal pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising from the foreclosure of their home. 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 Samaniegos’ action because the action constitutes a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment and raises claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. 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 barred plaintiffs claim because the relief sought “would require the district court to determine that the state courts decision was wrong and thus void”).
AFFIRMED.