
    Wayne D. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Aziz SHARIAT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-16772
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 21, 2016
    Wayne D. Smith, Pro Se
    Lynne L. Bentley, Borton Petrini, LLP, San Jose, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Aziz Shariat
    Michael P. Schibly, San Carlos, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Georgetown Mini Storage and Yanasa, Inc.
    Kristin N. Reyna, Todd R. Kinnear, Attorneys, Gordon & Rees LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Lee Vining
    Donald Douglas Shureen, Esquire, McMillan & Shureen LLP, Santa Rosa, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Linda Hilts
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and.. FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Wayne D. Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his action alleging federal and state law claims related to his employment and occupancy at the Camp Chaquita RV park. 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). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Smith’s action because Smith failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claims, even after Smith was given opportunities to amend his complaint. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face); see also Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting forth elements of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Grimmett v. Brown, 76 F.3d 606, 510 (9th Cir. 1996) (setting forth elements of a civil RICO claim); Fobbs v. Holy Cross Health Sys. Corp., 29 F.3d 1439, 1447 (9th Cir. 1994) (Title VI requirements).

We reject as'without merit Smith’s contention that he was entitled to default judgment against defendants Gennai and Funk.

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