Max Loumena v. Leslie Nichols , 671 F. App'x 454 ( 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 23 2016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
MAX LOUMENA, No. 16-15296
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:15-cv-02303-BLF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LESLIE NICHOLS; WALTER P.
HAMMON,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Max Loumena appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from his
parents’ state court divorce proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
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, Loumena’s
request for oral argument, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.
§ 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 Loumena’s action because it is a
“forbidden de facto appeal” of a state court order denying Loumena’s request for
relief from restrictions on his ability to live with his mother and raises
constitutional claims that are inextricably intertwined with that state court order.
See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine bars de facto appeals of a state court decision and constitutional claims
“inextricably intertwined” with the state court decision).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Loumena’s motion
for recusal because Loumena failed to establish any ground for recusal. See United
States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of
review and grounds for recusal).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-15296