Philippe Zogbe Zatta v. Steven Charles Eldred, in his person and official capacities;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PHILIPPE ZOGBE ZATTA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STEVEN CHARLES ELDRED, in his
person and official capacities; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-56483
D.C. No. 8:18-cv-02280-ODW-
JEM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Philippe Zogbe Zatta appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising
from a California state court case brought by his former wife for child support. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under
* 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
MAR 18 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-56483
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine Zatta’s claims against the state actor
defendants (i.e., all defendants except Lisiane Dohi Lepe, Israel Louis Cross, Jr.,
Goli Marius Beugre, Florence Loba, and Venus Valine Harry) because these
claims constitute “de facto appeal[s]” of a California state court decision. Noel v.
Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining when a federal action is a
“de facto appeal” of a state court decision).
The district court properly dismissed Zatta’s claims against the remaining
defendants because they are not state actors. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48
(1988) (“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must . . . show that the alleged
deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Zatta’s
complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile.
See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir.
2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave
to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
We reject as unpersuasive Zatta’s contention that the district court erred by
ignoring his Amended Objection to the Report and Recommendation.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-56483
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).
Zatta’s motion to transmit exhibit (Docket Entry No. 5) is granted. Zatta’s
motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 53) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --