Craig McKinney v. Rick Martinez , 700 F. App'x 729 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        NOV 1 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    CRAIG BRUCE McKINNEY,                           No. 17-15620
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00448-MMD-
    VPC
    v.
    RICK MARTINEZ, individually and as an           MEMORANDUM*
    officer of Fire Extinguisher Service Center,
    LLC; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted October 23, 2017**
    Before:      McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    Craig Bruce McKinney appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of
    his action alleging Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”)
    and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
    *
    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).
    novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 
    213 F.3d 443
    , 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28
    U.S.C. § 1915A); Jones v. Blanas, 
    393 F.3d 918
    , 926 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal
    based on the applicable statute of limitations). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed McKinney’s action as time-barred
    because McKinney failed to file his action within the applicable statute of
    limitations. See Pincay v. Andrews, 
    238 F.3d 1106
    , 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2001) (civil
    RICO claims have a four-year statute of limitations, which begins to run when a
    plaintiff knows or should have known of the injury underlying the action);
    Grimmett v. Brown, 
    75 F.3d 506
    , 515-16 (9th Cir. 1996) (civil RICO claims were
    not tolled during the pendency of a prior judicial action because the prior judicial
    action was not a perquisite to review in federal court).
    We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court.
    See United States v. Elias, 
    921 F.2d 870
    , 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts
    not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                   17-15620