*1 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 *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
[*] 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).