N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT TR AVIS IR VIN M IDDLETON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. R IC K VON GELDR

EN, De fe nda

nt, and R AUL VASQUEZ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-55345 D.C . No. 2:08-c v-08231-SVW AGR M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Ste phe n V. W ilson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d August 25, 2015 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , C LIFTON, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. 

# FIL ED SEP 04 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). Ac c o rdingly , M iddle ton’ s re que s ts for ora l a

rgum e nt, se t forth in his brie fs, a re de nie d.Travis Irvin M i d dle ton a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing his ac tion a lle ging R a c ke te e r Influe nc e d a nd C orrupt Orga

n iz ations Ac t (“ R IC O” ) c la im s a

n d RIC O c onspira c y c la i m s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w de n ovo a dism issa l for fa ilure to sta te a c la im unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 12(b)(6). He bbev . Plile r , 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th C ir. 2010). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d M iddle ton’ s RIC O and RIC O c onspira c y

c la im s be c a

use M iddle ton fa i le d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show two or m ore pre dic at e c rim ina l a c ts c onstituting a patte rn of ra c ke te e ring a c tivity . Se e Sanford v . Me mbe rW

ork s, Inc . , 625 F.3d 550, 557, 559 (9th C ir. 2010) (se tting forth e le m e nts of a

R IC O c la i m

unde r 18 U.S.C . § 1962(c ), a nd e xpla ining tha

t, to ple a d a R IC O c onspira c y c la im

unde r § 1962(d), thepla intiff m ust first a de quate ly ple a d a substa ntive viola

tion of R IC O ); se ealso He bbe , 627 F.3d a t 341-42 (a lthough pro se ple a dings a re libe ra lly

c onstrue d, pla intiff m

ust a lle g e fa c ts suffic i e nt to sta

te a pla u sible c l a im ); C

holla Re ady

Mix , Inc . v . C iv i sh , 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th C ir. 2004) (c onc l usory a lle gations, unwa

rrante d de duc tions, or unre a s ona

ble infe re nc e s ne e d not bea c c e pte d a s true ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d M iddle ton’ s c la im s a g a i nst de fe nda nt Hill be c a u se he is e ntitle d to judic ia l im m unity . Se eAshe l

man v . Pope , 793 F.2d 1 3 - 5 5 3 4 5 21072, 1075 (9th C ir.1986) (e n ba nc ) (judge s are e ntitle d to a bsolutejudic ia l im m unity from a dam a ge s a c t ion a

rising out of judic ia l a c ts). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the c l a im s a ga inst de fe nda nts Dudle y and Franklin be c a

use the y are e ntitle d to prose c utoria l im m unity . Se e K

alina v . Fle t c he r , 522 U.S. 118, 123-24 (1997) (a prose c utor a c t ing in thesc ope of he r dutie s in initia

ting a nd pursuing a

c rim ina l prose c ution is entitle d to im m unity). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng M i ddle ton le ave to am e nd a fte r providing him with two opportunitie s to a m e nd a nd c onc luding tha

t furthe r am e ndm e nt would be futile . Se eLope z v . Smith , 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th C ir. 2000) (e n ba

nc ) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re vie wan d e xpla ining tha t le a ve to am e nd should be

give n unle ss a

m e ndm e nt would befutile ); se e also C hodos v . W e s t Publ’g C

o. , 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th C ir. 2002) (a distric t c ourt’ s disc re tion to de ny le ave to a

m e nd is pa

rtic ula rly broa d whe n it ha s a fforde d pla intiff one or m ore opportunitie s to a

m e nd). W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a

rgum e nts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se ePadge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). W e re je c t M i ddle ton’ s c o nte ntions tha t the distric t c ourt viola

te d his c onstitutiona

l rights by dism issing his c la im s on theba sis of theple a dings. 1 3 - 5 5 3 4 5

3M iddle ton’ s re que sts for judic ia l notic e , se t forth in his ope ning brie f, are de nie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 5 5 3 4 5 4