Richard B. Fox v. Hca Holdings, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD B. FOX,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HCA HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-17342
D.C. No. 5:15-cv-02073-LHK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Richard B. Fox appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“RICO”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
* 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
JAN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-17342
Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Fox’s action because Fox failed to
allege facts in his amended complaint sufficient to state a claim for violations of, or
conspiracy to violate, RICO. See Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550,
557 (9th Cir. 2010) (elements of a RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)); Cholla
Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (a court is not
required to accept as true a complaint’s conclusory allegations, unwarranted
deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences).
Fox’s requests that this court vacate its prior disposition in Fox v. Good
Samaritan Hosp. LP, 467 Fed. App’x 731 (9th Cir. 2012) set forth in his opening
and reply briefs are denied.
We do not consider arguments or allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --