Azael Dythian Perales v. CITY OF BUENA PARK and CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AZAEL DYTHIAN PERALES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF BUENA PARK and
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
MOTOR VEHICLES,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-56349
D.C. No. 8:10-cv-00542-DOC-
MLG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend
the docket to reflect this status.
FILED
OCT 12 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-56349 2
Azael Dythian Perales appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his application to proceed in forma pauperis in his action against the California
Department of Motor Vehicles and the City of Buena Park alleging violations of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and numerous
other federal statutes. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
for an abuse of discretion. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir.
1998). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to
proceed in forma pauperis because Perales failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); see also Franceschi v.
Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (Eleventh Amendment
bars suits in federal court for damages against a state or an arm of the state);
Lancaster Cmty. Hosp. v. Antelope Valley Hosp. Dist., 940 F.2d 397, 404 (9th Cir.
1991) (RICO claims failed because government entities are incapable of forming a
malicious intent).
We do not consider issues not adequately raised and argued in the opening
brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
Perales’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --