Richard Fox v. Hca Holdings, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Richard Fox v. Hca Holdings, Inc.

675 F. App'x 648

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 30, 2017

Docket15-17342

StatusUnpublished

This text of 675 F. App'x 648 (Richard Fox v. Hca Holdings, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richard Fox v. Hca Holdings, Inc., 675 F. App'x 648 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Richard B. Fox appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his ac *649 tion 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 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.Appx. 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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Richard B. Fox appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his ac *649 tion 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 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.Appx. 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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

675 F. App'x 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-fox-v-hca-holdings-inc-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack