Opinion ID: 746516
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Bowen's RICO claim

Text: 25 The district court determined that Bowen failed to state a RICO claim and dismissed his RICO allegation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 26 To state a claim under RICO, Bowen must demonstrate that the defendants engaged in at least two acts of racketeering activity, as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). See Sun Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Dierdorff, 825 F.2d 187, 191 (9th Cir.1987). In his complaint, Bowen alleged that the actions of the individual defendants constitutes [sic] a criminal conspiracy to deprive [Bowen] of his civil rights and to injure his reputation and standing in the community. Civil rights violations and injury to reputation do not fall within the statutory definition of racketeering activity. Accordingly, Bowen's complaint fails to state a claim under RICO. 27 On appeal, Bowen does not attack the district court's substantive judgment. Rather, he simply asserts that the district court should have permitted him to amend his complaint before dismissing the RICO claim. However, Bowen never requested an opportunity to amend his complaint in the district court. Furthermore, Bowen fails to explain how he could have amended his complaint to state a claim under RICO. Indeed, Bowen does not substantively respond at all to the defendants' arguments on appeal that his RICO claim was properly dismissed. Accordingly, Bowen has waived this issue on appeal. See Han v. United States, 944 F.2d 526, 527 n. 1 (9th Cir.1991) (refusing to reach merits of argument that was not before the district court and raised on appeal only briefly, with no citation and little argument); International Union of Bricklayers v. Martin Jaska, Inc., 752 F.2d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir.1985) (court will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in appellant's opening brief).