NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HOWARD HERSHIPS, No. 17-16188
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00473-YGR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE, Director of the
California Judicial Council in her Official
Capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Howard Herships appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from state court
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
*
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).
dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154
(9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Herships’s action as barred by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Herships’s claims stemming from his prior state
traffic cases constitute a “de facto appeal” of prior state court judgments, or are
“inextricably intertwined” with those judgments. See id. at 1155-57 (the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine bars de facto appeals of a state court decision); see also Henrichs
v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine
barred plaintiff’s claim because the relief sought “would require the district court
to determine the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”).
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).
Herships’s requests for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 24, 50) are
denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-16188