Andrew Clark v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Andrew G. Clark appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Eclectic Prop. E., LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co., 751 F.3d 990, 995 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Clark’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims because Clark failed to allege facts sufficient to show a predicate act of racketeering activity. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (1); Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 939 (9th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff’s “vague allegations with no factual support that the defendants engaged in any of the requisite predicate crimes” were insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss).
The district court properly dismissed Clark’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims because Clark failed to allege facts sufficient to show the requisite state action. See Johnson v. Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, 1118-20 (9th Cir. 1997) (§ 1983 claims failed where plaintiffs did not show the action of a private individual amounted to state action).