CARLTON LOEBER V. AMEER ALGHUSAIN, ET AL, No. 22-16830 (9th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 28 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLTON BRYAN LOEBER, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-16830 D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00505-JD v. MEMORANDUM* AMEER ALGHUSAIN; AMIDAC; AMERICAN RAILWAYS LLC; GENERAL RAILWAYS LLC, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California James Donato, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 26, 2024** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges. Carlton Bryan Loeber appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo * 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). a sua sponte dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 896, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Loeber’s action because Loeber failed to allege facts sufficient to state a pattern of racketeering activity causing injury to Loeber’s business or property. See United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am. v. Bldg. & Const. Trades Dep’t, 770 F.3d 834, 837 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth elements of a civil RICO claim); Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining the heightened pleading standard applicable to civil RICO claims). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). All pending requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 22-16830

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.