Court Opinion

ID: 2648061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-01-02 21:00:37.880929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:24.282347
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              JAN 02 2014

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EARL HOBBS, an individual,                        No. 12-55793

               Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:11-cv-05018-SJO-
                                                  AGR
  v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; BELMONT                      MEMORANDUM*
SHORES INVESTORS, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company,

               Defendants - Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Central District of California
                     S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted December 17, 2013**

Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

       Earl Hobbs, an inactive attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from an attempt to evict

him and the resulting unlawful detainer action. We have jurisdiction under 28

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Hebbe

v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and a dismissal based on res judicata,

Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Hobbs’s § 1983 and declaratory relief

claims on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata because those claims were based

on the same primary right asserted in a prior state court action. See Manufactured

Home Cmtys., Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022, 1031 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To

determine the preclusive effect of a state court judgment federal courts look to state

law. . . . California’s res judicata doctrine is based on a primary rights theory.”

(citation omitted)).

      The district court properly dismissed Hobbs’s claim under the Racketeer

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) because Hobbs failed to

allege specific facts showing a pattern of racketeering activity and other required

elements. See Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 557-58 (9th Cir.

2010) (discussing elements of a RICO claim and particularity requirements of Fed.

R. Civ. P. 9(b)).

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                    12-55793