Plaintiff-Appellant Joan M. Petty (“Petty”) appeals the district court’s dismissal, for lack of standing, of her action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Affording her pro se brief the benefit of liberal construction, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), Petty argues that she has standing to sue under RICO based on bodily injury allegedly caused by the drug Vioxx.

A RICO plaintiff “must establish that [s]he has standing to sue.” Price v. Pinnacle Brands, 138 F.3d 602, 606 (5th Cir. 1998). As there is no recovery under RICO for personal injuries, a plaintiff does not have standing to sue under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) based on such injuries. See id. at 607 n. 20. Petty has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing her RICO action for lack of standing.

Dismissal of Petty’s RICO claim moots her emergency request for a temporary injunction, which was also not filed in accordance with Fifth Circuit Rule 27.3. Petty is advised that if the court determines future actions in connection with this emergency motion or any other action constitute frivolous, harassing, or contumacious conduct, she will be exposed to sanctions and penalties.

The judgment of the district court -is AFFIRMED. All outstanding motions are DENIED.