Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Smith v. British Petroleum of America
Citation: 324 F. App'x 690Docket: No. 07-16585
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; April 29, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Wayne Douglas Smith appeals pro se from the dismissal of his action regarding injuries from a slip and fall accident. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the case de novo. The appeal is affirmed. The district court dismissed Smith's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the defendants, being private entities or individuals, did not act under color of state law. The court referenced precedent indicating that private parties generally do not meet this criterion, and unsupported allegations are insufficient to establish a claim under the Civil Rights Act. Additionally, Smith's RICO claim was properly dismissed since he failed to demonstrate a pattern of racketeering activity, as required by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, based on only one alleged bribery incident involving a single defendant. A valid RICO claim necessitates at least two predicate acts, and personal injuries are typically not recoverable under RICO statutes. The court also denied Smith leave to amend his complaint, determining that any amendment would be futile. Smith waived his right to amend as a matter of course by not filing an amended complaint prior to final judgment. Smith's remaining arguments were deemed unpersuasive. The Clerk is instructed to file Smith’s “Corrections/Addendums” received on September 22, 2008. The decision is affirmed and is not intended for publication or precedent, except as allowed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.