`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`FILED
`
`
`MAR 18 2021
`
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
`
`
`
`No. 19-56483
`
`
`D.C. No. 8:18-cv-02280-ODW-
`JEM
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`PHILIPPE ZOGBE ZATTA,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`
`STEVEN CHARLES ELDRED, in his
`person and official capacities; et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendants-Appellees.
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Central District of California
`Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding
`
`Submitted March 16, 2021**
`
`Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
`
`
`Philippe Zogbe Zatta appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
`
`dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising
`
`from a California state court case brought by his former wife for child support. We
`
`have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under
`
`
`*
` 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).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017). We
`
`affirm.
`
`The district court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
`
`under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine Zatta’s claims against the state actor
`
`defendants (i.e., all defendants except Lisiane Dohi Lepe, Israel Louis Cross, Jr.,
`
`Goli Marius Beugre, Florence Loba, and Venus Valine Harry) because these
`
`claims constitute “de facto appeal[s]” of a California state court decision. Noel v.
`
`Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining when a federal action is a
`
`“de facto appeal” of a state court decision).
`
`The district court properly dismissed Zatta’s claims against the remaining
`
`defendants because they are not state actors. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48
`
`(1988) (“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must . . . show that the alleged
`
`deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”).
`
`The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Zatta’s
`
`complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile.
`
`See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir.
`
`2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave
`
`to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
`
`We reject as unpersuasive Zatta’s contention that the district court erred by
`
`ignoring his Amended Objection to the Report and Recommendation.
`
`
`
`2
`
`19-56483
`
`
`
`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).
`
`Zatta’s motion to transmit exhibit (Docket Entry No. 5) is granted. Zatta’s
`
`motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 53) is denied.
`
`AFFIRMED.
`
`
`
`3
`
`19-56483
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
