Jack Loumena v. Pamela Kennedy
This text of 671 F. App'x 446 (Jack Loumena v. Pamela Kennedy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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 *447 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
671 F. App'x 446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jack-loumena-v-pamela-kennedy-ca9-2016.