*1 Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Donald Morris Lee appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his “RICO Complaint by a Civilian.” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt *2 Organizations Act (“RICO”), see Howard v. Am. Online Inc. , 208 F.3d 741, 746 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.

Although Lee’s action was docketed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, Lee is not seeking habeas relief, as the district court noted. Instead, he alleges a RICO violation premised upon someone allegedly forging a judge’s signature on orders in his state court proceedings. The district court properly dismissed Lee’s action because he failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible RICO claim. See Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc. , 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985) (elements of RICO claim); Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 16-35472

[*] 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).