eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2018-01

Amr Mohsen v. Morgan Stanley & Co Inc , 710 F. App'x 330 ( 2018 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMR MOHSEN,                                     No. 16-55606
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:13-cv-07358-MWF-AS
v.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM*
MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 26, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before:      SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Amr Mohsen appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing 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 novo. Hebbe v. Pliler,
    627 F.3d 338
    , 341 (9th Cir.
*
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).
2010) (dismissal based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); 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 Mohsen’s RICO claims as time-barred
because Mohsen failed to allege facts sufficient to show that his RICO claims were
timely. See Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co.,
    431 F.3d 353
    ,
365 (9th Cir. 2005) (four-year statute of limitations period for civil RICO claims
begins to run when a plaintiff knows or should know of the injury that is the basis
for the action); Grimmett v. Brown,
    75 F.3d 506
    , 512-13 (9th Cir. 1996)
(discussing “separate accrual rule” in the RICO context).
The district court did not err by taking judicial notice of the complaint
Mohsen filed in an earlier action or documents filed in Mohsen’s criminal case.
See Lee v. City of Los Angeles,
    250 F.3d 668
    , 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth
standard of review for district court’s decision to take judicial notice; a court may
take judicial notice of matters of public record without converting a motion to
dismiss into a motion for summary judgment)
Mohsen’s request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
Mohsen’s request to reassign this case to a different district court judge, set
forth in his reply brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2                                       16-55606