CRAIG BRUCE McKINNEY v. Rick Martinez, individually and as an officer of Fire Extinguisher Service Center, LLC;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRAIG BRUCE McKINNEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RICK MARTINEZ, individually and as an
officer of Fire Extinguisher Service Center,
LLC; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-15620
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00448-MMD-
VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Craig Bruce McKinney appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of
his action alleging Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”)
and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
* 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).
FILED
NOV 1 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-15620
novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal
based on the applicable statute of limitations). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed McKinney’s action as time-barred
because McKinney failed to file his action within the applicable statute of
limitations. See Pincay v. Andrews, 238 F.3d 1106, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2001) (civil
RICO claims have a four-year statute of limitations, which begins to run when a
plaintiff knows or should have known of the injury underlying the action);
Grimmett v. Brown, 75 F.3d 506, 515-16 (9th Cir. 1996) (civil RICO claims were
not tolled during the pendency of a prior judicial action because the prior judicial
action was not a perquisite to review in federal court).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court.
See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts
not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --