Whitsitt v. San Joaquin County Mental Health

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM J. WHITSITT, No. 23-2264 D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00356-WBS-CKD Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH; B. RASMUSSEN, San Joaquin County Superior Court Commissioner, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 18, 2025** Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. William J. Whitsitt appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Whitsitt’s action because Whitsitt failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that, 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” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court did not err by failing to address Whitsitt’s Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claims because Whitsitt did not allege any RICO claims in the operative complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“[T]he general rule is that an amended complaint super[s]edes the original complaint and renders it without legal effect[.]”). We reject as unsupported by the record Whitsitt’s contentions that the district court’s judgment was the result of corruption or obstruction of justice. All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 23-2264