NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KARIM CHRISTIAN KAMAL, No. 20-55065
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01986-RGK-
DFM
v.
JOSEPH A. FARROW, Individual capacity; MEMORANDUM*
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
DONNA FIELDS GOLDSTEIN, Individual
capacity; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Karim Christian Kamal appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“RICO”) action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo a dismissal 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 Kamal’s action because Kamal failed
to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also
Eclectic Props. E, LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co., 751 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir.
2014) (stating the elements of a RICO claim); Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918
(9th Cir. 1996) (“Liability for improper custom may not be predicated on isolated
or sporadic incidents; it must be founded upon practices of sufficient duration,
frequency and consistency that the conduct has become a traditional method of
carrying out policy.”); Maynard v. City of San Jose, 37 F.3d 1396, 1404 (9th Cir.
1994) (“Intentional discrimination means that a defendant acted at least in part
because of a plaintiff’s protected status.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-55065