FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JACK LOUMENA, No. 15-17110
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:15-cv-00951-LHK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PAMELA KENNEDY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
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
*
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).
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.
2 15-17110