Case Name: Azael Dythian PERALES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF BUENA PARK and California Department of Motor Vehicles, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-12
Citations: 453 F. App'x 730
Docket Number: No. 10-56349
Parties: Azael Dythian PERALES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF BUENA PARK and California Department of Motor Vehicles, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 453
Pages: 730–730

Head Matter:
Azael Dythian PERALES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF BUENA PARK and California Department of Motor Vehicles, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-56349.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Oct. 12, 2011.
Azael Dythian Perales, Fullerton, CA, pro se.
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status.
Azael Dythian Perales appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis in his action against the California Department of Motor Vehicles and the City of Buena Park alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and numerous other federal statutes. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis because Perales failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); see also Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court for damages against a state or an arm of the state); Lancaster Cmty. Hosp. v. Antelope Valley Hosp. Dist., 940 F.2d 397, 404 (9th Cir.1991) (RICO claims failed because government entities are incapable of forming a malicious intent).
We do not consider issues not adequately raised and argued in the opening brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).
Perales's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.