
    Juan M. BRIBIESCA, M.D., C.C.P, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES, AND SAVITCH, LLP, a professional corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-55098
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 21, 2017
    Juan M. Bribiesca, Pro Se
    Sean M. Gaffney, Esquire, Attorney, Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP, San Diego, CA, Paul Andrew Tyrell, Kendra J. Hall, Attorneys, Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves, and Savitch, LLP, Timothy Salter, Paul Andrew Tyrell, Pacific Perfusion Inc., Richard F. Julien, Holly Colavin
    Scott D. Buchholz, Esquire, Senior Trial - Attorney, Frederick C. Bingham, Esquire, Dummit, Buchholz & Trapp, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Chris Van Gorder, Gary Fybel, Lisa Thakur, Brad Ellis, Scripps Health, Scripps Memorial Hospital, John Spinosa, Richard Unger, Irma Flores, Steven Peterson, Aimee Dovi
    Dane Joseph Bitterlin, Hugh Anthony McCabe, Neil, Dymott, Frank, McFall & Trexler APLC, San Diego, CA, Frederick C. Bingham, Esquire, Dummit, Buchholz & Trapp, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Alexander S. Giritsky
    Dana Stenvick, Attorney, Cole Pedroza LLP, San Marino, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee Mark A. Kalish
    John Peter Cooley, Esquire, Office of County Counsel, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees County of San Diego, William Gore, Larry Trapp
    Susanne C. Washington, San Diego Superior Court, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Randa McDaniel Trapp
    Cary Ames Kinkead, Esquire, Andrews Lagasse Branch & Bell LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Michael Meenen, Kelly Brinkman
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan M. Bribiesca, M.D., C.C.P, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action alleging federal claims arising from his state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bribiesca’s action as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Bribiesca’s action is a “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment, in which he raises issues that are “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. See Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 782 (9th Cir. 2012) (concluding that plaintiffs claim for conspiracy in the state court proceeding was “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s decision); Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred plaintiffs claim because alleged legal injuries arose from the “state court’s purportedly erroneous judgment” and the relief sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”). Contrary to Bribiesca’s contention, the extrinsic fraud exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply because Bribiesca did not allege facts showing that any adverse party prevented him from presenting his claims in state court. See Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply if extrinsic fraud prevented a party from presenting his claim in state court).

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).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     