Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0421-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wylmina Elizabeth HETTINGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy P. LOUMENA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-17135
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 16, 2016 
    
    Filed November 23, 2016
    Wylmina Elizabeth Hettinga, Pro Se.
    Timothy P. Loumena, Pro Se.
    Blake Loebs, Meyers Nave Ribaek Silver & Wilson, APLC, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellee PAMELA KENNEDY.
    John P. Devine, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
    Bruce Douglas MacLeod, Attorney, El-lyn Nesbit, Willoughby, Stuart & Bening, San Jose, CA, for Defendants-Appellees WALTER HAMMON, TRAVIS KRE-PELKA.
    Joseph Dermer, Esquire, Attorney, Dermer Law Firm, Los Gatos, CA for Defendant-Appellee SCOTT RALEY.
    Josette Darlene. Johnson, Trial Attorney, Dave M. McGraw, Esquire, Corporation Counsel, Fidelity National Law Group, Walnut Creek, CA, for Defendants-Appellees JEANIE O’CONNOR, CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY.
    Before; LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       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.
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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) (“[Arguments 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.