Earl Hobbs, an individual v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; BELMONT SHORES INVESTORS, LLC, a Limited Liability Company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EARL HOBBS, an individual,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; BELMONT
SHORES INVESTORS, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-55793
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-05018-SJO-
AGR
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
JAN 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 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.
12-55793 2

-- 2 of 2 --