
    Dennis KERR; Terry Kerr, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-16802
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 16, 2018 
    
    Filed January 25, 2018
    Dennis Kerr, Pro Se
    Terry Kerr, Pro Se
    Darren Brenner, William Habdas, Attorney, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Richard Aaron Chastain, Bradley Ar-ant Boult Cummings LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant-Appellee Bank of America, N.A.
    Matthew'R. Lewis, Esquire, Attorney, Michael D. Mayfield, Attorney, Ray Quin-ney & Nebeker P.C., Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendants-Appellees Zion Bank N.A., Quinney Nebeker PC
    Darren Brenner, William Habdas, Jesse Allen Ransom, Attorneys, Akerman Sen-terfitt LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Seneca Mortgage Servicing, LLC, Akerman LLP Nevada, Akerman LLP Utah
    Christian L. Moore, Esquire, Attorney, Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Poor, Roth; Robinson PC
    • Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

' Dennis and Terry Kerr appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Kerrs’ claim for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) because the Kerrs failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 557 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth elements of a civil RICO claim).

We do not consider matters or claims not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     