FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Jul y 3, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15102 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -029 66 -C V -C A M -1 D O N N A M A R I E S M I T H , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s J O H N H I L D E B R A N D , P I P E R Q U I N N , J O S E P H G A Y L E , M A R I A G O L I C K , P A T R I C K H E A D , J . L Y N N R A I N E Y , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju l y 3, 2007) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Smith does not alleg e that any defendant discriminated ag ainst her of the basis of her 1 rac e or alienag e. Theref

ore, shedid not state a 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim ag ainst any defendant. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981. WE DENY Smith’s mot ion for re consideration of our order grantingAppellants’ motion 2 for lea ve to file their brief out of time, and GRANT her motion to fil e the reply

brief out of

time. 2 D o n n aM a r i e Smi th , p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e , ap p e a l s th e d i s mi s s a l o f h e ri n f o rma p au p eri s ( “ I F P ” ) a c t i on, i n w hi c h s he a l l e ge d vi ol a t i ons of the c i vi l pr ovi s i ons of t he R a c k e t e e rI n f

l u e n c e d & Co rru p tO r g a n i z a t i o n s A c t( “ RI CO ” ) a n d d e p r i v a t i on of he rc i vi l r i ght s , i n vi ol a t i on of 42 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 . T h e di s tr i c tc ourtde e m e d the 1 ac t i on as fr i vo l ou s und er28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5(e) (2). O n app ea l , S m i th con t ends that t he di s tr i c tc ou rtj ud ge s ho ul d h a ve r e c us e d h i ms e l f f r om c on s i de r a t i on of

her l a w s u i t . Sh e a l s o a r g u e s th e d i s tr i c tc o u rte rr o n e o u s l y d e t e rmi n e d th a th e rc l a i ms w e r e f r i vol ous unde r § 1915( e ) ( 2) , a nd tha t the j udge s , pr os e c ut or s , an d pr oba t i on o f f ic e r , a ll o f

w h o m s h e n a m e d a s d e f e n d a n ts , w e r e e n title d to ab s o lu te im m u n ity b a rr i n g h e rs u i ta g a i n s tth e m. W e a f f i rm. 2 In her com pl ai n t, S m i th al l eged that , as partof a r ac ket ee ri ng ent erpri se , j udge s w ho pr e s i de d over he rc r i m i na l a nd habe a s pr oc e e di ngs ; pr os e c ut or s w ho prosec ut ed the cr i m i nal c h ar ges and l at erprob at i on vi ol at i on s a gai nsther; her pr oba t i on of

f i c e r ; a n i nde pe nde ntc ourtr e port e r ; a nd he rpubl i c de f e nde ra c t e d a nd conspire d to depri ve her of l i berty and prop erty i n the cond uctof her cr i m i nal p roce edi ng s, supervi si on of her probat i on , and p ursui tof appel l at e and col l at er al3

r e vi e w . S m i th a l s o a l l e ge d tha the rf orm e re m pl oy e r s pa rt i c i pa t e d i n the rack et e e r i ng a c t i vi ty a nd c ons pi r a c y w he n the y f i r e d he r f

r om he r pos i t i on a s a para l eg al b ased on her c ri m i nal backgrou nd hi st ory. A dd i t i on al l y, S m i th al l eged thatG eorgi a B oard of N ursi ng i m prop er l y r evok ed her nursi ng l i ce nse. W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c t cour t ’ s r e f us a l t o r e c us e f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on. D i vers i fi ed N um i sm at i cs v. C i ty of O rl and o , 9 4 9 F . 2d 38 2 (11 th C i r. 19 91 ). 2 8 U .S .C . § 4 5 5 p r o v id e s th a t: ( a ) A n y ju s tic e , ju d g e , o rm a g is tr a te ju d g e o f th e U n ite d S t a t e s s h a ll di s qua l i f y hi m s e l f

i n a ny pr oc e e di ng i n w h i c h hi s i m pa rt i a l i ty m i ght r e a s o n ab ly b e q u e s tio n e d . ( b ) H e s h a ll a ls o d is q u a lif y h im s e lf in th e f o llo w in g c ir c u m s ta n c e s : ( 1 ) W h e r e h e h a s ap e r s o n a l b ia s o rp r e ju d ic e c o n c e rn in g ap a rty , . . . 28 U . S . C . § 4 55 (a ), (b)( 1). T he l egal st andard for appl yi ng § 4 55 i s “ w hether a n obj e c t i ve , d i si n t e r e s t e d, l a y obs e rve rf ul l y i nf orm e d of

the f a c t s unde r l y i ng the gr ounds on w hi c h r e c us a l w a s s oughtw o u l d en t e rt a i n as i gni f i c a ntdoubtaboutthe j ud ge’ s i m part i al i ty. ” P ar k erv. C on no rs S t ee l C o. , 85 5 F . 2d 15 10 , 15 24 (11th C i r. 1988) W e ha v e s t a t e d th a tp r i o ra d v e r s e ru l i n g s d o n o tp r o v i d e ab a s i s f o rh o l di ng th a t ac o u rt’s im p a rtia lity is in d o u b t. B y rn e v . N e z h a t, 2 6 1 F .3 d 1 0 7 5 , 1 1 0 3 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2001) . F urthe r , “ i tha s l ong be e n r e ga r de d a s norm a l and pr ope rf oraj udge4

. . . t o s i ti n s uc c e s s i ve tr i a l s i nv ol vi ng the s a me de f e nd a nt . ” Li t e kyv. U ni t ed S t a t e s , 5 1 0 U. S . 5 4 0 , 5 5 0 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . F r o m o u rc a r e f u l r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d , we d is c e rn n o ab u s e o f

th e d is tr ic t ju d g e ’s d i s c r e t i o n i n h is d e n ia l o f th e m o tio n to re cuse , i n w hi ch S m i th p ri m ar i l y c hal l enged p ri or advers e ru li n gs and i n n o w ay e n u m e r a te d o b

je c tiv e r e a s o n s to c a ll th e ju d g e ’s im p a rtia lity in to d o u b t. A s f orS m i th’ s c ha l l e nge t o t h e f r i vol i ty di s m i s s a l unde r§ 1915( e ) ( 2) , our r ev i ew l i ke w i s e i s f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on. B i l a l v. D r i ve r , 251 F . 3d 1346, 1349 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). A n abu se of di sc re t i on o cc u rs i f aj ud ge fa i l s t o app l y the prop er l egal st andard, fa i l s t o fol l ow prop erprocedures, or m akes fi nd i ng s of f ac tthatar e c l e a r l y e rr one ous . I n R e R e d C a rpe tof P a na m aC i ty B e a c h, 902 F . 2d 883, 890 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . W e r e vi e w I F P di s m i s s a l s f orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m de novo, us i ng the s a m e s t a nda r d s t h atgove rn F e de r a l R ul e of C i vi l P r oc e dur e 12( b) ( 6) d i sm i ssal s an d v i ew th e al l eg at i o n s i n th e c o m p la in t as tru e. M i t ch el l v . F arcass, 1 1 2 F .3 d 1 4 8 3 , 1 4 9 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . T he di stri ctcourthas autho ri ty t o d i sm i ss an IF P ca se if itdet erm i nes that the a c t i on i s f

r i vol ous. 28 U . S . C . § 1915( e ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) . A c a s e i s f r i vol ous i f

( 1) the f a c tu a l al l eg at i o n s are “cl earl y b asel ess” o r (2 ) i ti s b ased o n a “ i n d i sp u t ab ly m e r i t l e s s l e ga l the ory . ” C a rr ol l v. G r os s , 984 F . 2d 392, 393 ( 11th C i r. 1 9 9 3 ). T he courtm ayal so d ism i ss an ac t i on i f i tdet erm i nes thatthe com pl ai ntfa i l s t o st at e a5

c la im . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( ii) . A c o m p la in t f a ils to s ta te ac la im w h e n it ap p ea rs beyond do ub tthatthe pl ai nt i ff can p rove no se tof fa ct s i n sup po rtof her c l a i m w h i ch w oul d e nt i t l e he rt o r e l i e f . M a r s h v. B ut l e rC ounty , A l a . , 268 F . 3d 1014, 1022- 23 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( e n ba nc ) ( c ons i de r i ng F e d. R . C i v. P . 12( b) ( 6) d i s m i s s a l o f

§ 1 9 8 3 in m a te a c tio n ) . A c o u rt is n o t r e q u ir e d to p e rm it ap la in tif f to a me ndhe rpl e a di ng s w he r e a me nd me ntw ou l d b e f ut i l e . Se e Cor s e l l o v . Li nc a re , 4 2 8 F .3 d 1 0 0 8 , 1 0 1 4 - 1 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( a f f irm i n g d e n ia l o f

p la in tif f’s m o tio n to am end h i s c om pl ai ntun der F ed. R . C i v. P . 15 ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 7 S . C t . 42 (200 6). U n d e rth e RI CO , ap e r s o n w h o i s i n j u r e d b y r e a s o n o f

a c r i m i na l RI CO vi ol a t i on m a y br i ng ac i vi l a c t i on a ga i ns t t h e R IC O vi ol a t or . 18 U . S . C . § 1964; M c C a le b v . A .O . S m ith C o rp ., 2 0 0 F .3 d 7 4 7 , 7 5 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . I t i s w e lls e tt l e d tha tthe a l l e ge d i nj ury m us ta r i s e f r om a n unl a w f

ul a c ts pe c i f

i ed i n 18 U .S .C . § 1 9 6 1 ( 1 ) . B e c kv . P ru p is , 5 2 9 U .S . 4 9 4 , 5 0 4 - 0 6 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ; L a n g f o r d v . R ite A i d of A l a . , I n c. , 2 3 1 F . 3d 1308, 1311- 12 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( de f i ni ng r a c ke t e e r i ng a c tiv ity a s th o s e a c ts lis te d in § 1 9 6 1 ( 1 ) ) . B e c a u s e S m i t h f a ile d to a lle g e a n y f

a c ts s o m uc h a s s ugge s t i ng tha t a ny de f e nda nt c om m i tt e d one of the c r i m i n al v i o l a t i ons l i st ed i n § 19 61 (1), the di stri ctcourtprop er l y c on cl u d ed th at h erR IC O cl ai m s w er e fri v o l o u s.6

W e are un pers uaded b y S m i th’ s r em ai ni ng cl ai m s. A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff i rm th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d i sm i ssal o f h er i n fo rm a p au p eri s (“ IF P ”) ac tio n a s fri v o l o u s, un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5(e) (2), and d eni al of her m ot i on t o rec use. AF F I RME D.