FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EARL HOBBS, an individual, No. 12-55793
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-05018-SJO-
AGR
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; BELMONT MEMORANDUM*
SHORES INVESTORS, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Earl Hobbs, an inactive attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from an attempt to evict
him and the resulting unlawful detainer action. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Hebbe
v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and a dismissal based on res judicata,
Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hobbs’s § 1983 and declaratory relief
claims on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata because those claims were based
on the same primary right asserted in a prior state court action. See Manufactured
Home Cmtys., Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022, 1031 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To
determine the preclusive effect of a state court judgment federal courts look to state
law. . . . California’s res judicata doctrine is based on a primary rights theory.”
(citation omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Hobbs’s claim under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) because Hobbs failed to
allege specific facts showing a pattern of racketeering activity and other required
elements. See Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 557-58 (9th Cir.
2010) (discussing elements of a RICO claim and particularity requirements of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 9(b)).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-55793