Hassell
Hassell v. Curley
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Melvin R. Hassell appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing without leave to amend his action alleging, among other things, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68 (“RICO”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and, after de novo review, Schmier v. U.S.Ct. of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 279 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir.2002), we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Hassell’s RICO claim arising from an October 1994 corporate merger was barred by the four-year statute of limitations. See Grimmett v. Brown, 75 F.3d 506 , 510-12 (9th Cir.1996).
The district court was not required to inform Hassell of the deficiencies with his amended complaint and grant him leave to amend because it was clear that he could not allege a timely RICO claim. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (a notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend are not required when amendment would not cure the complaint’s deficiencies).
Hassell’s contention that the district court improperly relied upon a transcript of a settlement hearing among the parties in a related state court action is not…