FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 26, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 98 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -0 14 69 -RWS JOHNNY C. COOKSEY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us ATTORNEY W . MICHAEL WATERS, Bal lard , Ste ph en so n & W at ers , PC, ALLAN MAXWELL, LORA MAXW ELL, ALEXAND ER, ROYSTON, HARDMAN & SHINALL, L LP, Law Firm , Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 26 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Jo hn ny Coo ks ey ap pe al s p ro se t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er d en y in g h is m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t t o t hr ee o f th e d efen da nt s, de nyin g h is m ot io ns to am en d h is co m pl ai ntan d fo r in

jun ct iv e rel ie f, an d di sm is si ng th e rem ai ni ng cla im s fo r la ckof s ub ject- m at te r juri sd ic ti on . On ap pe al , Co ok se y fir starg ue s tha t the co urt erredinfin di ng no ev id en ce i n t he reco rdto supp ort v io la ti on s o f § 1 98 5( 3) , anderredingra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t t o t he de fen da nt s. Sec on d, Co ok se y co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e g ran te d hi m lea ve to am en d h is co m

pl ai nt , as the am en dm en ts wou ldno t h av e p reju di ced th e p art ie s. Fi na ll y , Coo ks ey arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredindi sm is si ng hi s rem ai ni ng cla im s ag ai ns t the Max well s fo r la ckof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on . 1 I. Co ok se y ’s firs t cl ai m

is th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredingra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t t o t he de fen da nt s o n h is § 1 98 5 a nd§ 1 98 6 c la im s. We revi ew de no vo a d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t. Co okv. Ra nd ol ph Co un ty, 57 3 F .3d 11 43 , 11 51 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Summ ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te if “ th e m ov an t sh ows th atth ere i s n o g enui ne di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al factan d t he m ov an t i s Cooksey ’s brief

also includes an a

rgument headingchalleng ing the denial of a 1 motion for injunctive relief , but the argument section of his brief fails to provide a

ny argument on the issue. As Cooksey fails to articulate a c halleng e to the district cour t’s denial of his motion for injunctive r elief, w e dec line to rea ch the issue. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (pe r curiam) (holdingthat an issue is aba ndoned if it is not raised in a pa rty ’s initial brief, eve n if that party is pro se). 2en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 56 (a). “ The ba si c is su e be fo re the co urt o n am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t i s ‘whet he r th e ev id en ce pr es en ts a su ffi ci en t d is ag reem en t t o re qu ire subm is si onto a jury or whe th er i t i s so on e-s id edth aton e p arty m us t p rev ai l as a m atte r of

law.’ ” Alle n v . Ty so n Fo od s, In c., 12 1 F .3d64 2, 6 46 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (quo ti ng And ers onv. Lib erty Lob by, Inc., 4 77 U.S. 24 2, 2 51 -5 2, 1 06 S. Ct. 2 50 5, 2 51 2 (1 98 6) ). To b rin g a42 U.S.C. § 1 98 5( 3) cla im , a pl ai nt iff m us t p ro ve :

“ (1 ) a co ns pi racy; (2 ) fo r th e p ur po se of d ep riv in g, ei th er d ire ct ly or in di rect ly, an y pe rs on or c la ss of p ers on s o f th e equa l p ro te ct io n o f th e la ws, o r of equa l pr iv il eg es an d i m

m un it ie s u nd er the laws ; an d (3 ) anactinfurth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy; (4 ) whe reb y

a pe rs on is eit he r in

jure d i n h is pe rs onor p ro pe rty or de pr iv edof a ny rig htor p riv il eg e o f a ci ti zenof t he Uni te d S ta te s.” Pa rk v. Ci ty of Atl an ta , 12 0 F .3d11 57 , 11 61 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (p er cu ria m). The Supr em e Co urt h as he ldth ata § 1 98 5( 3) co ns pi racy m us t b e m ot iv at edby a racia l o r ot he rwis e cl as s- ba se d, i nv id io us ly dis cri m in at ory an im us . Griffi n v . Brec ke nr id ge , 40 3 U.S. 8 8, 1 02 , 91 S.Ct . 17 90 , 17 98 (19 71 ).

“ The on ly righ ts th e Supr em e Co urt h as expr es sl y de cl aredto be en fo rceabl e ag ai ns t p riv at e co ns pi rat or s u nd er § 19 85 (3 ) are th e ri gh t t o i nt ers ta te tra ve l an d t he rig htag ai ns t i nv ol un ta ry servi tu de . Con ve rs el y , th e Supr em e Co urt 3ha s d ecl aredth e fre ed om of s pe ech an d t he rig ht s p ro te ct edun de r Tit le VII in su ffi ci en t t o fo rm

th e b as is of § 19 85 (3 ) act io ns ag ai ns t p riv at e co ns pi rat or s.” Ji m en ez v . W el ls tar Heal th Sy s., 5 96 F.3d13 04 , 13 12 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (ci ti ng Bray v. Alex an dr iaW om en ’s Healt h C li ni c, 50 6 U.S. 2 63 , 27 8, 1 13 S. Ct. 7 53 , 76 4 (1 99 3) ; Gre atAm . Fed . Sav . & Loan Ass ’n v. No vo tn y , 44 2 U.S. 3 66 , 37 8, 9 9 S. Ct . 23 45 , 23 52 (19 79 )) (i nt ern al cit at io ns om itte d) . Thi s C ou rt h as he ldth at co ns pi raci es to vi ol at e p ro pe rty andco nt ractrig ht s, tho ug h p ro te ct edun de r § 1 98 1, ar e in su ffi ci en t t o fo rm th e b as is of a§ 1 98 5( 3) cla im ag ai ns t a p riv at e act or . Ji m en ez, 5 96 F.3dat 1 31 2. The co urt d idno t err in gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t Co ok se y be cau se he fai le d t o p res en t s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o e st ab li shan y ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al factas t o t he all eg edvi ol at io ns of 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 85 (3 ). Co ok se y all eg es th atth e Ma xwe ll s co ns pi redwith t he ir a tt orne y s t o d ep riv e h im of a cces s t o t he eas em en t an d t o t he us e o f hi s p ro pe rty, buthe ha s p ro ffer edno ev id en ce i n supp ort o f th is all eg at io n. Co nc lu so ry all eg at io ns of d is cri m in at io n a nd co ns pi racy, w itho utm or e, are n otsu ffi ci en t t o s up po rt aciv il rig ht s cl ai m at t he su m m ary jud gm en t s ta ge . Fu ll m anv. Grad di ck , 73 9 F .2d55 3, 5 56 -5 7 (1 1t h C ir.

419 84 ). Mo reo ve r, Co ok se y ha s fa il edto all eg e th e d ep riv at io n o f a ri gh t 2 en fo rceabl e und er § 19 85 (3 ). He all eg es th e d ep riv at io n o f 10 rig ht s, s om e o f whi chare p ro te ct edun de r § 1 98 1, b utno ne of wh ic h a re en fo rceabl e und er § 19 85 (3 ). Forall of t he for eg oi ng reas on s, Co ok se y ’s § 1 98 5( 3) cla im m us t fa il . Bec au se § 1 98 6 c la im s ar e d eri va ti ve of § 19 85 vi ol at io ns , hi s § 19 86 cla im als o fai ls . See Park v . Cit y

of At lant a, 12 0 F .3d11 57 , 11 59 -6 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) (pe r cu ria m) II. Co ok se y ne xtarg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredinde nyin g h is m ot io n t o am en d h is co m

pl ai nt . W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o a m en d aco m pl ai ntfor ab us e o f di sc ret io n, b utwe rev ie w de n ov o t he un de rlyin g l eg al co nc lu si on th ata pa rti cu lar am en dm en t t o t he co m pl ai ntwou ldhave be enfut il e. Co rs el lo v. Lin care , Inc ., 42 8 F .3d10 08 , 10 12 (11 thCir . 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m). W e h ol d p ro se pl ead in gs to a le ss strin ge ntst an da rdth anpl ead in gs dra fte d b y att orne y s an d, th eref or e, wil l l ib eral ly con st ru e th os e p le ad in gs . Mil le r v. Do na ld , 54 1 F .3d 10 91 , 11 00 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). At th e ti m e th atCo ok se y fil edhi s m ot io ns to am en d, It should also be noted that Cooksey ’s alleg ations ag ainst Attorney Waters and the 2 two law firms do not re fute the c laims of the lawyers that they wer e ac ting within the scope of their leg al re prese ntation of their clients. We have held that an attorney ’s conduc t within the scope of repr esentation of a client is immune from any alleg ation of a § 1985 c onspiracy . Fa rese v. Schere r, 342 F .3d 1223, 1232 (11th Cir. 2003) (pe r curiam). 5Fed . R. Civ . P. 15 (a)( 1) pr ovi de d, in re le va nt p ar t, tha t “ [a ] pa rt y m ay am en d it s ple adingonc e as a

m at te r of c our se . . . be fo rebe ingse rv ed w ith a r es pons ive ple ading . ” F ed . R. Ci v. P . 15( a) (1 ) (2 00 7) . After ares po ns iv e p le ad in g was fil ed , as was the cas e h ere, a p arty co ul d a m en d i ts pl ead in g o nl y aft er o bt ai ni ng th e op po si ng pa rty’ s wri tt enco ns en t o r by ob ta in in g t he co urt’s l eav e to am en d. Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 1 5( a)(2 ) (2 00 7) . “ Ord in ari ly, if t he un de rlyin g fa ct s o r ci rcu m st an ces rel ie d upo n b y

a pl ai nt iff

m ay be a pr op er s ub

ject o f rel ie f, le av e to am en d s ho ul d be free ly giv en .” Hall v. Un it edIns . Co. o f Am ., 36 7 F .3d12 55 , 12 62 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (ci ta ti on s an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Howev er, a d is tri ctco urt m ay pr op erl y de ny leav e to am en d und er Ru le 15 (a) i f su cham en dm en t “ wou ldbe fu ti le .” Id . at 1 26 3. Den ia l o f le av e to am en d “ is jus ti fie d b y fut il ity when th e co m pl ai ntas a m en de d i s s ti ll subjec t t o d is m is sa l.” Id . As Co ok se y

co nc ed es on ap pe al , hi s fi rs t p ro po se d a m en de d c om pl ai ntwas subs tant ia ll y

si m il ar t o t he ori gi na l co m pl ai nt , m erel y

rewo rd in g t he all eg at io ns . The ne w in fo rm at io n c on ta in edinth e fi rs t am en dm en t—na m el y , th e id en ti fic at io n of sp eci fic rig ht s v io late d b y de fen da nt s, the all eg at io ns th atth e Ma xwe ll s an d t he lawy ers ha d p art ic ip at edina la wsu itag ai ns t the pri orown ers of an e as em en t o ve r th e Ma xwe ll s’ lan d, an d t he all eg at io n tha t the Max well s’ pu rp os e in in st al li ng a fen ce was to sep arat e Co ok se y fro m th e whi te ten an ts —wo ul d n otha ve he lp ed 6Co ok se y

est ab li sh a cl ai m

un de r §§ 19 85 (3 ) an d 1 98 6 b ecau se he st il l l ack edan y ev id en ce d em on strat in g c on du ctby priv at e act or s tha t wo ul d b e act io nabl e und er 19 85 (3 ), an d b ecau se hi s al le ga ti on s wer e st il l m erel y co nc lu so ry . Like wis e, th e se co ndpro po se d a m en dm en t, wh ic h wo ul d h av e ad de d t hr ee n ew pa rti es , als o d id no th in g t o a dv an ce Co ok se y ’s con te nt io ns . Thu s, the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g C oo ks ey ’s m ot io ns to am en d b ecau se hi s p ro po se d am en dm en ts were fu ti le . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm as t o t hi s i ss ue . III. Fi na ll y , Coo ks ey

arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredindi sm is si ng hi s rem ai ni ng cla im s fo r la ckof s ub ject- m at te r juri sd ic ti on . W e rev ie w de n ov o a di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f a co m pl ai ntforlac k o f subjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on . Hall v. U.S. Dep ’t Veter an s’ Affai rs , 85 F.3d53 2, 5 33 (11 thCir . 19 96 ) (p er cu ria m). A fede ral co urt m ay rai se th e is su e o f la ck

of s ub ject- m at te r juri sd ic ti on on it s o wn i ni ti at iv e atany st ag e o f li ti ga ti on . Arbau gh v. Y & H Co rp ., 54 6 U.S. 50 0, 5 06 , 12 6 S . Ct. 1 23 5, 1 24 0 (2 00 6) . If th e co urt d et erm in es th atsubjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on is lac ki ng , itm us t d is mis s the co m

pl ai ntinit s en ti rety . Id . at 5 14 , 12 6 S. Ctat 1 24 4. Fu rth erm or e, a d is tri ctco urt m ay de cl in e to ex erci se supp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er a s ta te law cl ai m if “ th e d is tri ctco urt h as di sm is se d a ll cla im s ov er wh ic h i t h as ori gi na l juris di ct io n.” 28 U.S.C. § 1 36 7( c)(3 ). 7Afte r ad jud ic at in g t he § 1 98 5( 3) an d § 19 86 cla im s i n fa vo r of th e de fen da nt s, the re were no rem ai ni ng fed eral cla im s b efo re the co urt. Co ok se y ap pe ars to arg ue th athe ass ert edot he r fed eral cla im s, b utth is Co urt i s u nabl e to fin d s pe ci fic art ic ul at io n o f an y su chcla im s. Thus , th e co urt p ro pe rly exer ci se d i ts di sc ret io n t o d is mis s the rem ai ni ng cla im s wi th ou t p reju di ce fo r la ckof juri sd ic ti on . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm as t o t hi s i ss ue . Upo n ath or ou gh rev ie w of the en ti re re co rdon ap pe al , andaft er co ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

8