PATSY SAKUMA V. ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNER, No. 16-16791 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PATSY N. SAKUMA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-16791 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00274-DKWKJM v. ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF THE TROPICS AT WAIKELE, an incorporated association, by its board of directors; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Patsy N. Sakuma appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We * 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). review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thomson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm. Dismissal of Sakuma’s action was proper because Sakuma failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible RICO claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353, 361 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a civil RICO claim). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Sakuma’s motion to file supplemental excerpts of record (Docket Entry No. 40) is granted and the docket reflects that the supplemental excerpts of record have been filed. All other pending requests and motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 16-16791

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.