NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
S. A. THOMAS, in both his individual and class representative capacities,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. LEROY D. BACA; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 15

- 55399
D.C. No. 2:14

- cv - 07883

- R

- VBK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 7, 2017 Pasadena, California
Before: LIPEZ, ** BEA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
S.A. Thomas appeals the district court’s dismissal of his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)

. We have ju risdiction to hear this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. Because the parties a re familiar with the factual and procedural

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Kermit V

. Lipez, United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

AUG 16 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

background, we repeat only those facts necessary to resolve the issues raised on appeal.
1. Thomas contends that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to recuse Judge Manuel L. Real

. We disagree. In denying the motion, Judge S. James Otero reasonably determined that any alleged animosity held by Judge Real against Stephen Yagman, a former attorney acting as a paralegal for Thomas , did not amount to bias against Thomas , and that Thomas had failed to provide evidence of any bias by Judge Real against Marion Yagman, Thomas’s attorney

. See United States v. Jacobs , 855 F.2d 652, 656 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (citing United States v. Burt , 756 F.2d 1364, 1368 (9th Ci r. 1985) )

. 2. Thomas also contends that the district court erred when it dismissed the
FAC , which alleged constitutional claims and civil RICO 1 claims. But , Thomas’s

o pening b rief present ed no argument or record citations to support his contention that the court erred when it dismissed his constitutional claims. Therefore, Thomas
waived these claims on appeal. See Nilsson, Robbins, Dalgarn, Berliner, Carson & Wurst v. La. Hydrolec , 854 F.2d 1538, 1548 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam); Ninth
Circuit Rule 28

- 1(b); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) ; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 687 (2009) (holding that mere recitation of “bare elements” of a cause of

1 Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1964.3

action is insufficient to survive dismissal)

. And , the district court did not err when it dismissed Thomas’s civil RICO
claims. The district court properly dis missed Thomas’s claims against D efendants
in their official capacities , as those claims are properly made against the Los Angeles County She riff’s Department , see Will v

. Mich

. Dep ’ t of State Police , 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) , and g overnmental entities cannot form the necessary criminal
intent to commit a RICO violation , s ee Pedrina v. Chun , 97 F.3d 1296, 1300 (9th Cir. 1996). The district court also properly dis missed Thomas’s ci vil RICO claims against D efendants in their personal capacities. The FAC proffered legal conclusions in support of these claims rather than specific factual allegations

. N

. S tar Int’l v. Ariz

. Corp. Comm’ n , 720 F.2d 578, 583 (9th Cir. 1983) (“ Because the complaint is vague, conclusory, and general and does not set forth any material facts in support of the allegations, these claims were properly dismissed .”)

. 3. Thomas next contends that the district court abused its discretion when it
denied his mo tion for class certification. The district court held that Thomas had
not demonstrated the commonality require d by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) , and Thomas’s opening brief fails to identify which al legations in the FAC
establish commonality

. Therefore, Thomas has not demonstrated that reversal is
warranted.
4. Finally, Thomas contends that the district court erred when it refused to4

refund his filing fee. Because Thomas’s o pening b rief did not present any
argument or citations to the record to support this contention, the issue is also
waived. See Nilsson , 854 F.2d at 1548.
AFFIRMED.