Williams v. Clark County Public Administrator, 112012 FED9, 11-16952
|Party Name:||TERRY WILLIAMS, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Charles L. Williams and Successor Trustee of the Charles L. Williams Living Trust, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLARK COUNTY PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR; et al., Defendants-Appellees. and CHARLES L. WILLIAMS, Sr., Deceased, Plaintiff,|
|Judge Panel:||Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||November 20, 2012|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted November 13, 2012.[**]
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 2:09-cv-00810-RCJ-LRL for the District of Nevada Robert Clive Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding.
Terry Williams appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising from probate and wrongful death proceedings involving her father's estate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's rulings regarding venue, Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., Inc., 212 F.3d 493, 504 (9th Cir. 2000), and the dismissal of an action for failure to state a claim, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The California district court properly transferred Williams's action to Nevada because California was an improper venue for claims against defendants in Nevada that arose substantially out of events in Nevada. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (listing grounds for venue); 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (authorizing transfer of case to district where it could have been filed instead of dismissing it for improper venue).
The Nevada district court properly dismissed Williams's claims under the Full Faith and Credit Clause because it does not authorize a private right of action. See Thompson v. Thompson, 798 F.2d 1547, 1555-56 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam).
The Nevada district court properly dismissed Williams's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), civil rights, conspiracy, and breach of contract claims because Williams failed to allege one or more elements for a prima facie claim. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985; Miller v. Yokohama Tires Corp., 358 F.3d 616, 620 (9th Cir. 2004) (RICO claim); GES, Inc. v. Corbitt, 21 P.3d 11, 15 (Nev. 2001) (civil conspiracy claim); Bernard v. Rockhill Dev. Co., 734 P.2d 1238, 1240 (Nev. 1987) (per curiam) (contract claim)....
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP