Jesse T. Moten v. C. E. Ducart;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSE T. MOTEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
C. E. DUCART; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16903
D.C. No. 5:16-cv-04821-LHK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jesse T. Moten appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to
* 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
JUN 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-16903
state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892
(9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Moten’s RICO claim because Moten
failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (though pro se pleadings are to be
liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to
state a plausible claim for relief); Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours
& Co., 431 F.3d 353, 361 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a civil RICO claim); Bowne
v. Oistead, 125 F.3d 800, 806 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Civil rights violations . . . do not
fall within the statutory definition of ‘racketeering activity.’”).
We reject as meritless Moten’s contentions concerning joinder, and Judge
Koh’s failure to recuse.
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).
Moten’s request for judicial notice, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --