Case Name: Rick SATCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank SHUBERT; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-22
Citations: 129 F. App'x 371
Docket Number: No. 04-35492; D.C. No. CY-04-05001-FDB
Parties: Rick SATCHER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Frank SHUBERT; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 129
Pages: 371–372

Head Matter:
Rick SATCHER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Frank SHUBERT; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-35492.
D.C. No. CY-04-05001-FDB.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 4, 2005.
Decided April 22, 2005.
Rick Satcher, Toledo, WA, pro se.
Helen Mareen Bartlett, Vander Stoep Remund Kelly & Blinks, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Chehalis, WA, Joel E. Wright, Esq., Alison H. Killebrew, Lee Smart Cook Martin & Patterson, P.S., Inc., Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellees.
Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rick Satcher appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his action alleging violations under the Racketeer' Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968 ("RICO"), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in connection with his grandfather's state court guardianship proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the dismissal of the RICO claim de novo. Howard v. America Online Inc., 208 F.3d 741, 746 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The second amended complaint alleges defendants used wire and mail services as part of a scheme to encumber Satcher's property and interfere with his business. To state a valid RICO claim, Satcher was required to allege "(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity." See Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Corp., 473 U.S. 479, 496, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985). The district court correctly dismissed the RICO claim because Satcher, at a minimum, failed to sufficiently allege a pattern of racketeering activity. See Turner v. Cook, 362 F.3d 1219, 1230-31 (9th Cir. 2004) (a valid RICO claim must allege acts of mail and wire fraud that involve a threat of future criminal conduct).
We do not consider the district court's dismissal of Satcher's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims or dismissal of Harvey Daniel as a plaintiff in this action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b) because Satcher failed to raise these issues in his opening brief to this court. See Koemer v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1048 (9th Cir.2003).
Satcher's remaining contentions lack merit.
Satcher's January 21, 2005 motion to file a late reply brief is granted. The clerk shall file the reply brief received on January 10, 2005.
Appellees' requests for attorney's fees and costs are denied without prejudice to refiling in accordance with Fed. R.App. P. 38.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.