Case Information
*1 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 *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
[*] 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).