Wylmina Hettinga v. Timothy Loumena , 671 F. App'x 421 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WYLMINA ELIZABETH HETTINGA, No. 14-17135
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:13-cv-02217-RMW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TIMOTHY P. LOUMENA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Wylmina Elizabeth Hettinga appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations
arising from her state court divorce proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Hettinga’s
requests for oral argument set forth in her opening brief and reply are denied.
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.
We affirm the district court’s dismissal because Hettinga failed to raise any
argument in her opening brief concerning the district court’s ground for dismissal,
and has therefore waived her appeal of the district court’s judgment. See Smith v.
Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A]rguments not raised by a party in
its opening brief are deemed waived.”).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-17135