NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FAREED SEPEHRY

- FARD,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. DEPARTMENT STORES NATIONAL BANK; et al., Defendants

- Appellees. No. 14

- 16085 D.C. No. 3:13

- cv - 03131

- WHO

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Horsley Orrick III, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2016 ** Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN , Circuit Judges. Fareed Sepehry

- Fard appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging fe deral and state law claims relating to a state court debt collection case . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

* 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). 

# FILED

NOV 7 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 16085

novo the district court’ s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Ru le of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010 )

. W e affirm. The district court properly dismissed Sepehry

- Fard’s claims against defendants Patricia M. Lucas, Mar y Arand, and Mark H. Pierce on the basis of judicial immunity. See Ashelman v. Pope , 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (“ Judges . . . are absolutely immune from damage liability for acts performed in their official capacities.” ). To the extent that Sepe hry

- Fard’s claims sought review of a prior state court judgment, the district court properly dismissed those claims as barred by the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine. See Noel v. Hall , 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) ( Rooker

- Feldman bars de facto appeals of a state court decision and constitutional claims “inextricably intertwined” with the state court decision); see also Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. , 525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008) (a de facto appeal is one in which “the adjudic ation of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling or require the district court to interpret the application of state laws or procedural rules” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court properly dismissed Sepehry

- Fard’ s clai ms for declaratory3 14

- 16085

relief, accounting, violation of the Racketeer Influence d and Corrupt Organizations Act, and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law because Sepehry

- Fard failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe , 627 F.3d at
341

- 42 (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief). Sepehry

- Fard’s contentions that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdic tion over this action , lacked personal jurisdiction o ver defendants , was biased , or violated Sepehry

- Fard’s rights to a jury trial, due process, or equal protection by dismissin g this case , are unpersuasive

. We do not consider arguments raised for the firs t time on appeal or matters not specifically and distinctly raised a nd argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Sepehry

- Fard’s pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.