Unpublished Disposition, 859 F.2d 154 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^** 

For the second time in five months we are faced with the Chows, who appeal pro se from the district court's order granting defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b) (6) motion. Once again, the Chows allege the existence of a vast conspiracy among the defendants and others, the object of which has been to deny the Chows the opportunity to pursue their former occupations as pharmacists. The Chows again assert a number of claims, including civil rights violations, RICO violations, conspiracy, fraud, obstruction of justice, antitrust violations and burglary.

The Chows' briefs and pleadings are rambling, incoherent documents, filled with vague allegations of misconduct and allusions to facts and events which are never clearly explained. Having studied these submissions in some detail, and having tried to the best of our ability to understand the allegations, we conclude that the district court was correct in ruling that the Chows have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We accordingly affirm the district court's judgment.

We note that this is at least the eighth suit filed by the Chows relating to the same underlying events. While the Chows are understandably upset about the loss of their pharmaceutical license, it is apparent to everyone but the Chows that they can present no cognizable claim. Each suit the Chows file forces an ever-widening group of defendants to spend time and money preparing a defense, and burdens an already overburdened court system. Although we have authority to award attorneys' fees to defendants in these circumstances, Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 n. 9 (1985), we decline to do so in this instance. We warn the Chows, however, that sanctions will be imposed against them if they continue this barrage of groundless litigation.

AFFIRMED.