FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            DEC 07 2009

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS




                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



 DANA JUDD; GREGORY CURFMAN,                     No. 07-56815

               Plaintiffs - Appellants,          D.C. No. CV-06-01061-ODW

   v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
 PAMA BANGEMAN; et al.,

               Defendants - Appellees.



                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Central District of California
                     Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted November 17, 2009 **

Before:        ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

        Dana Judd and Gregory Curfman appeal pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing their action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
            The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

LA/Research
1961-1968 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.

Noel v. Hall, 

, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine);

Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 

, 922 (9th Cir. 2004) (judicial

immunity); Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 

, 973 (9th Cir. 2004)

(failure to state a claim). We affirm.

       The district court properly dismissed the claims against the state court judges

because they are entitled to absolute immunity for actions undertaken in their

judicial capacities. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (barring injunctive relief against a

judicial officer “unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was

unavailable.”).

       The district court properly dismissed the RICO claim because plaintiffs

failed to allege with sufficient particularity a pattern of racketeering activity

cognizable under the RICO statute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); Miller v. Yokohama

Tire Corp., 

, 620 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Lancaster Cmty. Hosp. v.

Antelope Valley Hosp. Dist., 

, 405 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that

Rule 9(b)’s requirements apply to RICO actions alleging the predicate act of mail

fraud).

       Appellants’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

       AFFIRMED.


LA/Research                                 2                                       07-56815