Case Name: Roy Lee PALMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF the TREASURY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-13
Citations: 53 F. App'x 455
Docket Number: No. 01-36032; D.C. No. CV-01-06093-AA
Parties: Roy Lee PALMER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF the TREASURY; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 53
Pages: 455–455

Head Matter:
Roy Lee PALMER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF the TREASURY; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 01-36032.
D.C. No. CV-01-06093-AA.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 2, 2002.
Decided Dec. 13, 2002.
Before GOODWIN, HUG, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
Palmer’s motion to recuse Judges Thompson, Canby and Graber is denied as moot.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Roy Lee Palmer appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing his amended complaint alleging Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") claims against agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and other defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals for failure to state a claim under the screening provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Palmer's RICO claims because his amended complaint contained only conclusory allegations of conspiracy and failed to attribute specific wrongful conduct to any individual defendant. See Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 541 (9th Cir.1989) (applying the particularity requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) to RICO claims); Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir.1991) (conclusory allegations of conspiracy are insufficient to state a civil rights claim).
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.