Opinion ID: 47302
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Abele Failed to State a Claim Under the RICO Act.

Text: We have explained that a civil claim under the RICO Act requires proof of four elements: “(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.” Langford v. Rite Aid of Alabama, Inc., 231 F.3d 1308, 1311 (11th Cir. 2000). “[A] pattern of racketeering activity . . . [is] defined as two ‘predicate acts’ of racketeering activity within a 10 year period. The phrase 5 ‘racketeering activity’ is defined as including any act which is indictable under a lengthy list of criminal offenses . . . .” Id. at 1311-12 (internal citation omitted); see 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). Abele failed to state a claim under the RICO Act because he failed to allege the defendants committed predicate acts that would constitute a pattern of racketeering activity under section 1961(1). See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1), (5). Abele alleged the defendants “wantonly and maliciously destroyed” several of his properties over a 12-year period and wrongly removed a water meter from a mobile home he owned, but these actions are not included as predicate acts in section 1961(1). The district court correctly dismissed the claim Abele brought under the RICO Act.