Charles F. Ruggles Blanche Ruggles v. T.H. Ingram J. Wann P.A. Nemeth N. Anderson E.A. Traboulay, Jr. Cindy Pank County of Riverside

972 F.2d 1342 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Charles F. RUGGLES; Blanche Ruggles, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. T.H. INGRAM; J. Wann; P.A. Nemeth; N. Anderson; E.A. Traboulay, Jr.; Cindy Pank; County of Riverside, Defendants-Appellees. No. 91-55884. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 7, 1992. * Decided July 17, 1992. Before FARRIS, WIGGINS and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Charles and Blanche Ruggles (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Ruggles") appeal the district court's dismissal of their pro se complaint against the County of Riverside and certain named individuals. The complaint alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. After providing Ruggles an opportunity to amend his complaint, the court found that Ruggles's first amended complaint still failed to state a claim, and it dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. 1 We affirm. DISCUSSION…