Huggins v. U.C. Santa Barbara

Full title: Harold HUGGINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.C. Santa BARBARA; et al.…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 24, 2001

21 F. App'x 673 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

21 Fed.Appx. 673 (9th Cir. 2001) Harold HUGGINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.C. Santa BARBARA; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-57133. D.C. No. CV-99-00627-DOC. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Oct. 24, 2001

Submitted Oct. 15, 2001. ^*

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Huggins' request for oral argument is denied.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Former student brought Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) action against university. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, David O. Carter, J., dismissed, and appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals held that university's alleged misgrading of student and misconduct in ensuing grievance process did not constitute continuing "pattern of criminal activity," as required to state RICO claim.

Affirmed.

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 28

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding.

Before REINHARDT, GRABER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Harold Huggins appeals the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim Huggins' action alleging that his federal student loans should be extinguished

Page 674.

because the University gave him a bad grade in an engineering course in 1992, and then engaged in misconduct in the ensuing grievance process. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

Dismissal was proper because, among other things, Huggins failed to allege conduct that constitutes a continuing pattern of criminal activity as required by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. See Allwaste, Inc. v. Hecht, 65 F.3d 1523, 1527 (9th Cir.1995).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Huggins' motion to amend his complaint because the proposed amended complaint does not cure the deficiencies. See M/V American Queen v. San Diego Marine Constr. orp., 708 F.2d 1483, 1492 (9th Cir.1983). Moreover, any federal civil rights claims would be time-barred. See Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir.1999).

The University's request for judicial notice is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.