NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 22 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
TRAVIS MIDDLETON; GILDA EVANS, No. 13-55271
Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-09499-SJO-PLA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MARTINGALE INVESTMENTS, LLC;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Travis Middleton and Gilda Evans appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their action alleging, among other claims, Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claims arising from state
*
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). Appellants’ requests for oral
argument, set forth in their briefs, are denied.
court unlawful detainer proceedings against Evans after Martingale Investments
purchased Evans’s property in a foreclosure sale. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Appellants’ action because the first
amended complaint failed to allege any specific facts showing that they were
entitled to relief. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (a
complaint must go beyond “labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action,” and provide the grounds for entitlement to
relief); see also Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 557, 559 (9th Cir.
2010) (setting forth elements of a RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), and
explaining that, to plead a RICO conspiracy claim under § 1962(d), the plaintiff
must first adequately plead a substantive violation of RICO).
The district court properly dismissed Appellants’ damages claims against
defendant Judge Walmark on the basis of judicial immunity. See Ashelman v.
Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (judges are entitled to
absolute judicial immunity from a damages action arising out of judicial acts). We
reject Appellants’ contention that they alleged non-judicial conduct taken in the
2 13-55271
complete absence of jurisdiction that would not be covered by judicial immunity.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend after
concluding that amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review
and explaining that leave to amend should be given unless amendment would be
futile).
We reject Appellants’ contentions that private attorneys have no standing to
represent state defendants, and that the district court violated their constitutional
rights by dismissing the claims on the basis of the pleadings. Because the district
court properly dismissed Appellants’ action for failure to state a claim, they had no
right to discovery or a jury trial.
Appellees Judge Walmark’s and the Superior Court of California’s request
for fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, set forth in their answering brief, is
denied because that statute does not cover this case. This denial is without
prejudice to Appellees seeking fees and costs on a proper basis.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-55271