988 F.2d 118 (9th Cir. 1993), 91-56255, Franceschi v. City of Huntington Beach
|Citation:||988 F.2d 118|
|Party Name:||Ernest J. FRANCESCHI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH; Huntington Beach Police Department; Tom Mays; R.E. Lowenberg; County of Orange, Municipal Court; County of Orange, Judicial District; County of Orange; Cecil Hicks, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||February 04, 1993|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Decided Feb. 10, 1993.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; No. CV-90-1385-SVW, Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding.
Before PREGERSON, LEAVY and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Ernest J. Franceschi appeals from a district court order granting summary judgment for defendants-appellees. Franceschi alleges that defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1961 ("RICO") 1 and his Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process by using speed traps to cite him for speeding. 2 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
On three occasions in 1989, Huntington Beach police officers stopped Franceschi for driving at speeds of 85, 75, and 75 miles per hour. On each occasion, the police officers cited Franceschi under California Vehicle Code§ 22350 for driving at a speed "greater than reasonable or prudent." Cal.Veh.Code § 22350 (West 1985). Franceschi contends that he received these citations as a result of speed traps operated by the City of Huntington Beach. See Cal.Veh.Code § 40802 (West 1985) (defining a speed trap as a stretch of highway with a prima facie speed limit, not justified by an engineering or traffic survey conducted within the last five years, and where enforcement involves the use of radar). All three speeding citations were dismissed. Franceschi then initiated this action against city and county officials. The district court ordered Franceschi to file a motion for summary judgment. The court denied that motion and entered judgment sua sponte for all defendants in all claims. Franceschi timely appealed.
Franceschi fails to establish a RICO claim. To prevail under RICO, Franceschi must demonstrate that the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP