Eunice Russell v. Iva Russell

977 F.2d 591 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Eunice RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Iva RUSSELL, Defendant-Appellee. No. 91-55970. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 22, 1992. * Decided Sept. 28, 1992. Before GOODWIN, D.W. NELSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Eunice Russell (Eunice) appeals the dismissal of his civil RICO complaint, in which he claimed that his stepmother in various acts of conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 , which deprived him of his rightful inheritance. The district court dismissed the complaint, with prejudice, on the grounds that it failed to state a claim; it was barred by res judicata; and it was time barred. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We hold that the complaint is barred by the relevant statute of limitations and affirm on this ground. 3 As an initial…