
    Howard HERSHIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tani CANTIL-SAKAUYE, Director of the California Judicial Council in her Official Capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-16188
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 16, 2018 
    
    Filed January 29, 2018
    Howard Herships, Pro Se
    Michael L. Fox, Esquire, Attorney, Duane Morris LLP, San Francisco, CA, Douglas J. Collodel, Esquire, Clyde & Co US LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Sacramento County Superior Courts
    Courtney Suzanne Lui, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee Jean Shiomoto
    Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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