N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

SANJAY B HAR DW A J, Pla intiff - Appe lla nt,

v. ANUPAM A PATHAK; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17498 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-03807-SI

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Susa n Illston, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 31, 2016 ** Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd HAW KINS a n d M c KEOW N, C i rc uit Judge s. Sa nja y B ha rdwa j a ppe a ls p r o s e f

r o m the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of his R a c ke te e r Influ en ced a n d C orrupt Orga niz a tions Ac t (" R IC O" ), 18 U.S.C

. §§ 1961-1968, 42 U.S.C

. § 1983, a nd sta t e la w c la im s a ga inst his e x-wife a n d 

# FIL ED
SEP 02 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r o pr iat e f o r p ub l i c a t ion a

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.
** T h e p an el u n an i m o u sl y co n cl u d e s t h i s c a s e i s s u i t a b l e f o r d e c i s i o n without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).num e rous othe rs who we re involve d in the sta te c ourt-orde re d sa le of the fa m ily hom e

a nd division of m a rita l a sse ts during his a n d his e x-wife 's diss o lu t ion proc e e dings. W e ha v e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm

. 1. W e re v ie w de novo dism issa ls unde r Fe de ra l R u le of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(1)

a nd (6). Rhoade

s v . Av on Prods., Inc

. , 504 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th C ir. 2007). B ha rdwa j’ s c l a im s a ga inst hi s ex - w i f e, h e r a ttorne y s, t

he sta t e c ourt, the sta

te

c ourt judge a nd c om

m i ssione r, the c ourt-a

ppointe d re a l e sta

te a ge nt, the s he riff who

e vic te d B ha

rdwa j, the buy e rs of the hom e , a nd the e sc row holde r a re a lm ost e ntire l y ba se d on, or “ ine xtric a

bly inte rtwine d ” with, the sta te c ourt’ s a lle ge d le ga l e rrors a n d la c k of j urisdic tion to orde r t he sa le

. N

oe l v . Hall , 341 F.3d 1 148, 1158 (9th C ir. 2003). The re wa s no e rror in dis m i s s i ng those c la im s be c a use a djudic a ting those

c la im s w o uld ha v e re quire d the distric t c ourt to re vie w the sta te c ourt’ s de c ision for le ga l e rror, a

nd a s suc h, the c la im s a re ba rre d by the Rook

e r-Fe ldman doc tri ne . Sk inne r v . Sw itze r , 562 U.S. 521, 5 31-32 (2011); C oope r v . Ramos , 704 F.3d 772, 777-78, 782-83 (9th C ir. 2012). The re w a s a lso no e rror i n dism issing the c la im s a ga inst the Ala m e da C oun t

y Supe rior C ourt, a s the y a re ba rre d by t he Ele ve nth A m e ndm e n t. Simmons v . Sac rame nto C

t y . Supe rior C

ourt , 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th C ir. 2003).

2The re wa s al s o n o er ror in dism issing B ha rdwa j ’ s c la im s t

ha t the sta

te c ourt judge pre siding ov er the dissolution proc e e dings a nd B ha rdwa j’ s e x -wife ’ s a ttorne y
c onspire d with c ourt re porte rs to ta m pe r with sta

te c ou rt he a ring tra nsc ripts. B ha rdwa j fa i le d to sta

te a c la im unde r R ICO be c a use he d id not a de qua te ly a lle ge obstruc tion of justic e or a n y othe r “ ra c ke te e r i n g a c tivity ” within the m e a ning of R IC O. Se e 18 U .S.C

. § 1961(1) (e xha u stive list o f cr im e s tha t m a y c onstitute

r ack et eer i ng a c tivity ); se e also O’Malle y v . N .Y.C

. Transit Auth. , 896 F.2d 7 04, 708 (2d C ir. 1990) (obstruc tion of justic e unde r 18 U.S.C

. § 1503 lim ite d to inte rfe re nc e with fe d e ra l c ourt proc e e dings). His re m a ining c la im s fa il b e c a use his a lle ga tions a re highly im pla usible , va gue, an d co nclusory a s to the e xiste nc e of a c onspira c y . Se e Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“ The pla usibility sta

nda rd

. . . as ks for

m ore tha n a s he e r possibility tha t a de fe nda nt h a s a c te d unla

wfully .” ); Simmons , 318 F.3d a t 1161 (c onc lusory a lle ga tions of a priva te a ttorne y 's c onspiracy w ith sta te offic e rs a re insuffic ie n t to sta

te a § 1983 c la i m

a ga inst the a ttorne y ). 2. The distric t c o urt d id no t a buse its disc re tion in dism issing the c om pla int wi t h o u t l eave to a m e nd be c a use a m e ndm e nt would ha ve be e n futile

. B ha rdwa j’ s propose d a

m e ndm e nts would not ha ve c ure d the de fic ie nc i e s. C e rv ante s v . C ountry w ide Home Loans, Inc

. , 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th C i r. 2011) (“ Although le a ve t o am e nd should be give n fre e ly , a distric t c ourt m a y d ism iss without le a ve w h er e a

3pla i ntiff's propose d a m en dm e n ts would fa il to c ure t he p le a ding de fic i e nc ie s a n d

a m e ndm e nt would be futile .” ). 3. The distric t c ourt did n ot a buse its disc re ti o n i n ta k i ng judic ia l notic e of sta te

co u r t doc um e n ts, a s the distric t c ourt re lie d on the m only to d e sc ribe t he proc e du r al history of the c a se . Se e Le e v . C ity of Lo s A n ge le

s , 250 F.3d 668, 688-90 (9th C ir. 2001). AFFIRM E D.

4