Case Name: Jack LOUMENA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pamela KENNEDY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-23
Citations: 671 F. App'x 446
Docket Number: No. 15-17110
Parties: Jack LOUMENA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pamela KENNEDY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 446–447

Head Matter:
Jack LOUMENA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pamela KENNEDY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-17110
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 16, 2016
Filed November 23, 2016
Jack Loumena, Pro Se.
Bruce Douglas MacLeod, Attorney, Wil-loughby, Stuart & Bening, San Jose, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Walter P. Ham-mon, Travis I. Krepelka, Scott Raley.
Ellyn Nesbit, Willoughby, Stuart & Ben-ing, San Jose, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees Walter P. Hammon, Travis I. Krepel-ka.
Dave M. McGraw, Esquire, Corporation Counsel, Fidelity National Law Group, Walnut Creek, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees Jeanie O’Connor, Chicago Title Company.
Helen Hoeffel, Fidelity National Law Group, a Division of Fidelity National Title Group, Inc., Walnut Creek, CA, for Defen-danh-Appellee 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.