Dana Judd; Gregory Curfman v. Pama Bangeman;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANA JUDD; GREGORY CURFMAN,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
PAMA BANGEMAN; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 07-56815
D.C. No. CV-06-01061-ODW
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Dana Judd and Gregory Curfman appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§
FILED
DEC 07 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LA/Research 07-56815 2
1961-1968 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine);
Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004) (judicial
immunity); Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004)
(failure to state a claim). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the claims against the state court judges
because they are entitled to absolute immunity for actions undertaken in their
judicial capacities. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (barring injunctive relief against a
judicial officer “unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable.”).
The district court properly dismissed the RICO claim because plaintiffs
failed to allege with sufficient particularity a pattern of racketeering activity
cognizable under the RICO statute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); Miller v. Yokohama
Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616, 620 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Lancaster Cmty. Hosp. v.
Antelope Valley Hosp. Dist., 940 F.2d 397, 405 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that
Rule 9(b)’s requirements apply to RICO actions alleging the predicate act of mail
fraud).
Appellants’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --