MEMORANDUM **
James and Carina Conerly and Marilyn Tillman-Conerly appeal pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing sua sponte their action alleging claims based on their state court custody proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district courts dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it was a “de facto appeal” of a prior state court decision and plaintiffs raised claims that were “inextricably intertwined” with that state court decision. See id. at 1163-65 (discussing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 782 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that claims, as well as requests for damages, are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court decisions where federal adjudication “would impermissibly undercut the state ruling on the same issues” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as meritless plaintiffs’ contention that the district court was biased against them.
Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement their brief (Docket Entry No. 5) is granted. The exhibits attached to the motion include private information. The Clerk is directed to seal the exhibits.
AFFIRMED.