Opinion
No. 15-17110
11-23-2016
JACK LOUMENA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAMELA KENNEDY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 5:15-cv-00951-LHK MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Jack Loumena appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his parents' state court divorce proceedings. 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 may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Loumena's action was proper because Loumena failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant was acting under the color of state law. See Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991) (private parties do not generally act under color of state law for § 1983 purposes).
AFFIRMED.