Court Opinion

ID: 737959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-04-17 18:56:44+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:11.206437
License: Public Domain

108 F.3d 1384
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.Howard BROWNING, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 96-56332.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 11, 1997.*Decided March 13, 1997.

Before:  SNEED, LEAVY and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

1
MEMORANDUM**

2
Howard Browning appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his first amended complaint alleging that employees of Educational Services Inc. spied on him, stalked him and wired his telephone in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") [18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968].  We affirm.  We agree with the district court that Browning's complaint fails to state a claim for a violation of RICO.  See 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c);  Oscar v. University Students Co-op Ass'n, 965 F.2d 783, 786 (9th Cir.)  (en banc), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 655 (1992).

3
AFFIRMED.

*
 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.  Fed.R.App.P. 34(a);  9th Cir.R. 34-4

**
 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3