Dennis Kerr v. Bank of America, N.A.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Dennis Kerr v. Bank of America, N.A.

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 25 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DENNIS KERR; TERRY KERR, No. 16-16802

Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00306-MMD-WGC v.

MEMORANDUM* BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 16, 2018** Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Dennis and Terry Kerr appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

*

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). 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Kerrs’ claim for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) because the Kerrs failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 557 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth elements of a civil RICO claim).

We do not consider matters or claims not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We do not consider documents 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 16-16802

Reference

Status
Unpublished