Carlton Bryan Loeber v. Ameer Alghusain; Amidac; American Railways LLC; General Railways LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLTON BRYAN LOEBER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AMEER ALGHUSAIN; AMIDAC;
AMERICAN RAILWAYS LLC; GENERAL
RAILWAYS LLC,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16830
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00505-JD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
James Donato, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 26, 2024**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Carlton Bryan Loeber appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (“RICO”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
* 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).
FILED
MAR 28 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16830
a sua sponte dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Omar v.
Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 896, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Loeber’s action because Loeber failed
to allege facts sufficient to state a pattern of racketeering activity causing injury to
Loeber’s business or property. See United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am. v.
Bldg. & Const. Trades Dep’t, 770 F.3d 834, 837 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth
elements of a civil RICO claim); Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058,
1065-66 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining the heightened pleading standard applicable to
civil RICO claims).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --