Clarence Tate v. Keith Stanton

MEMORANDUM

Clarence Demetrius Tate, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), and from the pre-filing order designating him a vexatious litigant. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the dismissal, Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir.2008), and review for an abuse of discretion the entry of the pre-filing order, Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Tate failed to plead facts to state a RICO claim against the defendants. See Turner v. Cook, 362 F.3d 1219, 1228-31 (9th Cir.2004) (discussing elements of a RICO claim); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir.2009) (stating that a complaint must allege facts that are “plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief’ (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868…