EARL HOBBS V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, No. 12-55793 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 02 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EARL HOBBS, an individual, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 12-55793 D.C. No. 2:11-cv-05018-SJOAGR v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; BELMONT SHORES INVESTORS, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, MEMORANDUM* Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 17, 2013** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Earl Hobbs, an inactive attorney, appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from an attempt to evict him and the resulting unlawful detainer action. We have jurisdiction under 28 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and a dismissal based on res judicata, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Hobbs s § 1983 and declaratory relief claims on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata because those claims were based on the same primary right asserted in a prior state court action. See Manufactured Home Cmtys., Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022, 1031 (9th Cir. 2005) ( To determine the preclusive effect of a state court judgment federal courts look to state law. . . . California s res judicata doctrine is based on a primary rights theory. (citation omitted)). The district court properly dismissed Hobbs s claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( RICO ) because Hobbs failed to allege specific facts showing a pattern of racketeering activity and other required elements. See Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 557-58 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing elements of a RICO claim and particularity requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)). AFFIRMED. 2 12-55793
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.
