
    Jack LOUMENA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Walter P. HAMMON; Travis I. Krepelka, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-17414
    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.
    Bruce Douglas MacLeod, Ellyn Nesbit, Willoughby, Stuart & Bening, San Jose, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    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 requests for oral argument set forth in his reply 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 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 defendants were 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); see also Simmons v. Sacramento Cty. Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (conclusory allegations of a private attorney’s conspiracy with state officers are insufficient to state a § 1983 claim against the attorney).

We do not consider 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.
     