Case ID: f-appx_682/html/0614-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Janis Sakae OKAWAKI, DPA, MA, MPA, JD, BA Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST HAWAIIAN BANK, Mike Taylor, Senior Vice President and General Manager; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-16011
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 16, 2017
    Janis Sakae Okawaki, Pro Se
    Craig Kunio Shikuma, Esquire, Kobaya-shi Sugita & Goda, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellee First Hawaiian Bank
    Sarah T. Casken, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Corporation Counsel, City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellee City and County of Honolulu
    Austin F. McCullough, Torkildson, Katz, Moore, Hetherington & Harris, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellee FCH Enterprises
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Janis Sakae Okawaki appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing sua sponte her action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. Hebbe v. Filler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Okawaki’s action because Okawaki failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible RICO claim. See id. at 341-42 (though pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353, 361 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a civil RICO claim).

Okawaki’s motion (Docket Entry No. 11) is denied.

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