Ross v. Orange County Bar Ass'n

Good Law
369 F. App'x 868
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 8, 201008-57003California331 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Robert M. Ross appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Ross’s claims against defendants Orange County Bar Association, Phillip Kohn, and Kenneth Frank are time-barred because Ross’s claims accrued in 1992 and he filed this action in 2008. See Pincay v. Andrews, 238 F.3d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir.2001) (stating that the statute of limitations for civil RICO claims is four years). Further, Ross had no separate private right of action for mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 . See Wilcox v. First Interstate Bank, 815 F.2d 522 , 533 n. 1 (9th Cir.1987). We do not consider Ross’s contentions regarding equitable es-toppel because he did not raise that issue in the district court. See Cold Mountain v. Garber, 375 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir.2004) (“In general, we do not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal.”).

As to Ross’s claims against the remaining defendants, the district…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.