Case Explained: HICKS V. STATE OF WASHINGTON, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-07-30 Docket: 3:24-cv-05607-JNW The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Stephen Keith Hicks’s § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from state family court proceedings. The court held that the district court properly dismissed the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Under this doctrine, federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear cases that function as a de facto appeal of a state court judgment or are inextricably intertwined with such a decision, meaning federal adjudication would impermissibly undercut the state ruling on the same issues. The appellate court further determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without leave to amend because any amendment would have been futile given the jurisdictional bar. Consequently, the dismissal stands and Hicks’s claim is barred from federal review. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.