Court Opinion

ID: 9955568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 19:01:59.655006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:06.469438
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 28 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLTON BRYAN LOEBER,                           No. 22-16830

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00505-JD

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
AMEER ALGHUSAIN; AMIDAC;
AMERICAN RAILWAYS LLC; GENERAL
RAILWAYS LLC,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                    James Donato, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Carlton Bryan Loeber appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

Act (“RICO”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
a sua sponte dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Omar v.

Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 896, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Loeber’s action because Loeber failed

to allege facts sufficient to state a pattern of racketeering activity causing injury to

Loeber’s business or property. See United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am. v.

Bldg. & Const. Trades Dep’t, 770 F.3d 834, 837 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth

elements of a civil RICO claim); Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058,

1065-66 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining the heightened pleading standard applicable to

civil RICO claims).

      We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      All pending requests are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                     22-16830