ROBERT ALLEN RICHARDS, Jr. v. County of Los Angeles;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT ALLEN RICHARDS, Jr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-56732
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00400-PSG-AGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Robert Allen Richards, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and other claims in connection with child support proceedings.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal
* 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).
FILED
MAY 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-56732
under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.
2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Richards’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Richards’s claims
constituted a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment or were
“inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. See id. at 1163-65 (discussing
proper application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs v. Valley
View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred
plaintiff’s claim because the relief sought “would require the district court to
determine that 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).
We do not consider documents or facts not presented to the district
court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents
or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
Richards’s motion for leave to file multiple reply briefs (Docket Entry No.
24) is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply briefs submitted at Docket Entry Nos.
20 to 23.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --