Opinion
Because the panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, Mardeusz's request for oral argument is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Susan Yvonne Illston, District Judge, Presiding.
Before BROWNING, SCHROEDER, and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Carol Mardeusz, mother of Haleigh Mardeusz, a minor, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure to state a claim under either 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (RICO); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986; or state common law. She alleges that defendants conspired to cover-up the abuse of Haleigh by her father because Mardeusz possessed information embarrassing to the Petaluma Police Department, specifically, that the Petaluma Police Department allegedly failed to act on Mardeusz's reported sighting of Richard Allen Davis, filed only days before he murdered Polly Klaas. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), see Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 1058 (1999), and we affirm.
Because Mardeusz failed to allege a "concrete financial loss," the district court did not err by dismissing her claims under 18 U.S .C. § 1962. See Oscar v. University Students Co-Operative Ass'n., 965 F.2d 783, 784 (9th Cir.1992) (en banc). The district court also properly dismissed Mardeusz's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because she was not actually deprived of her causes of action, a property interest, see Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 428 (1982), and because she failed to allege facts showing that any protected conduct was a "substantial" or "motivating" factor in defendants' decisions, see Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist., Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 285-87 (1977). In addition, the district court properly dismissed her claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and § 1986 because Mardeusz merely alleges a conspiracy without supporting it with specific facts. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 625-26 (9th Cir.1988).
The district court also properly dismissed Mardeusz's claims for intentional and negligent spoliation of evidence. See Saridakis v. United Airlines, 166 F.3d 1272, 1278 n. 7 (9th Cir.1999) (stating no tort remedy under California law for spoliation of evidence when victim knows of spoliation before decision on the merits in underlying action). Because Mardeusz did not have viable constitutional or negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, the district court properly dismissed her legal malpractice action. See Meighan v. Shore, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 744, 755-56 (Cal.Ct.App.1995); Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 748, 755 (Cal.Ct.App.1992).
Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mardeusz's petition to be appointed guardian ad litem to Haleigh because, as the district court noted, the complaint suggests that Mardeusz was not legally permitted to speak with Haleigh at the time of the petition. See U.S. v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 769, 804 (9th Cir.1986) (stating appointment of a guardian ad litem is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's 1915(e) dismissal and affirm the denial of Mardeusz's petition for appointment as guardian ad litem for Haleigh Mardeusz.
AFFIRMED.