-6-
and defending various lawsuits with the defendants as a result of
their alleged racketeering activities, and he sought treble
damages.
The District Court dismissed petitioner’s claims of judicial
errors in the State court for lack of jurisdiction, granted
summary judgment against him on his remaining claims, and denied
his discovery-related motions as moot. On March 31, 1998, the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District
Court’s order denying petitioner’s discovery motions and that
part of the District Court’s decision granting summary judgment
on petitioner’s due process claims, and remanded the case back to
the District Court.5
In 1999, petitioner filed another suit in the District
Court, this time against the State of Nevada, members of the
office of the attorney general of the State of Nevada, and a
former Nevada Supreme Court justice, alleging violations of his
civil rights under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 and a conspiracy to
5In all other respects, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. In disposing of
petitioner’s RICO claims, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit noted that petitioner had alleged that he suffered
“emotional and physical distress, lost income and litigation
expenses related to prosecuting and defending lawsuits, wrongful
termination, libel, and loss of his professional license.” The
Court of Appeals found, however, that although only the loss of
the professional license could constitute injury to “business or
property” for purposes of the RICO claims, petitioner had not
shown he had been deprived of his professional license, “much
less that such deprivation was the result of racketeering
activities on the part of the * * * [defendants]”.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011