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

SUSAN M AE POLK, Pla intiff - Appe lla nt,
v. JOHN POLK; e t a l ., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-16584 D.C . No. 4:12-c v-01026-PJH
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 Phy llis J. Ha

m i lton, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d July 14, 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. Susa n Polk a ppe a ls pr o se the d ism issa l of he r R a c k e te e r Influe nc e d a n d C orrupt O rga nizat i o n s A c t (“ R IC O” ), 18 U.S.C
. §§ 1961-1968, a nd c ivil rights conspira c y , 42 U.S.C
. § 1985, c la i m s a ga inst va rious i ndividua l s who al l eg ed l y



# FIL ED
JUL 18 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).c onspire d to ta ke c ontrol a n d liquida te f o r the ir o wn be n e fit the a sse ts of he r husba n d’ s e sta te a nd a t rust holding he r re a l prope rty
. W e ha ve j urisdic t ion unde r 2 8 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e re v ie w de novo, Barre n v . Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th C ir. 1998), a

nd a ffirm
. The re wa s no e rror i n dism issing Polk’ s R IC O c l a im s. H e r c om pla int wa s file d outside of R IC O’ s four-y e a r sta tute of lim ita

t ions, a nd she a l le ge s no fa c ts s upporting
e quita ble e stoppe l or tolling. Grim m e tt v . B r ow n , 7 5 F.3d 506, 5 13 (9th C ir. 1996) (lim iting “ se p a ra te a c c rua l rule ” to “ ne w a n d inde pe nde nt a c t[s] tha t [a re ] not m e re l y
a re a ffirm a t ion of a pre vious a c t” ) (e m pha sis om itte d). Polk’ s c l a im s a lso fa il be c a use she d id not a d e qua te ly a l l ege tha t D e fe n da nts e nga ge d in a pa tte rn of “ ra c ke te e ring
a c tivity
. ” Se e 1 8 U .S.C
. § 1 961(1) (e xha ustive list o f c rim e s tha t m a y c onstitute
ra c k e te e ring a c tivity ). Polk’ s § 1985 c la im s w e re prope rly d ism isse d. Polk did n ot a lle ge inte rfe re nc e with a ny fe de ra l c ourt proc e e ding, a s re quire d to sta te a c la im und er the first pa rt of § 1985(2). Bagle

y v . C MC Re al Estate C

orp. , 923 F.2d 758, 763 (9th C ir. 1991). Nor did she pla

usibly a lle ge t

ha t De fe nda

nts we re m otiva

te d by “ c la ss-ba se d, i nvidiously disc rim ina tory a nim

us,” a s re quire d to sta

t e a c la im unde r the se c ond pa rt of § 1985(2)
a nd unde r § 1 985(3). Id. (c ita tion a nd inte rna l qu o t at i o n m a rks om itte d); se e also Se v e r v . Alask

a Pulp C orp. , 978 F.2d 1529, 1536 (9th C ir. 1992).

2Fina lly , the re wa s no a buse of disc re tion in d e ny ing Polk m ore tim e to a m e n d he r c om p la int be c a

use furthe r a m e ndm e nt would ha ve be e n futile
. U.S. e x re l. Le e v . SmithK line Be e c ham, Inc

. , 245 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th C ir. 2001). Polk’s r eq u e st for judic ia l notic e , file d Nove m be r 26, 2013, is de nie d a s
unne c e ssa

ry . AFFIRM E D.

3