
    Jack LOUMENA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leslie NICHOLS; Walter P. Hammon, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-15250
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 16, 2016 
    
    Filed November 23, 2016
    Jack Loumena, Pro Se, Los Osos, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Sean Patterson, Michael L. Fox, Sedg-wick LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Leslie Nichols.
    Ellyn Nesbit, Bruce Douglas MacLeod, Willoughby, Stuart & Bening, San Jose, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Walter P. Hammon.
    Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Loumena’s request for oral argument, set forth in Ins reply brief, is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jack Loumena appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from 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 v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Loumena’s action because it is a “forbidden de facto appeal” of a state court order denying Loumena’s request for relief from restrictions on his ability to live with his mother and raises constitutional claims that are inextricably intertwined with that state court order. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (the Rook-er-Feldman doctrine bars de facto appeals of a state court decision and constitutional claims “inextricably intertwined” with the state court decision).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Loumena’s motion for recusal because Loumena failed to establish any ground for recusal. See United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for recusal).

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.
     