Robert Wooten v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT WOOTEN, No. 12-16971
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01791-MCE-
DAD
v.
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC; MEMORANDUM*
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Robert Wooten appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging federal and state law claims relating to his mortgage. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
*
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).
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Wooten’s Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claim because Wooten failed to allege with
sufficient particularity a pattern of racketeering activity. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)
(allegations of fraud must be “state[d] with particularity”); Lancaster Cmty. Hosp.
v. Antelope Valley Hosp. Dist., 940 F.2d 397, 405 (9th Cir. 1991) (Rule 9(b)’s
requirements apply to allegations regarding fraudulent predicate acts in RICO
claims). Moreover, the district court correctly found that Wooten’s RICO claim
was untimely. See Pincay v. Andrews, 238 F.3d 1106, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2001)
(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 his action).
We do not consider matters 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).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-16971