[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-12571

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:16-cv-00934-PGB-GJK

ROBERT MONI, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

VOLUSIA COUNTY, CORP., 

BEN F. JOHNSON, 

Sheriff, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(April 5, 2018)

Before JULIE CARNES, ANDERSON, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 17-12571 Date Filed: 04/05/2018 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Robert Moni, proceeding pro se, appeals the order granting the dismissal 

with prejudice of his action for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1346, 21 U.S.C. § 848, 18 U.S.C. § 1961, 18 U.S.C. § 242, and for intentional 

infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). On appeal, Moni argues that the district 

court erred in concluding that his amended complaint failed to state a sufficient 

factual basis to sustain the various causes of action contained in the complaint. 

We review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a 

claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) de novo. Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town of 

Jupiter, FL, 529 F.3d 1027, 1037 (11th Cir. 2008). To survive dismissal for failure 

to state a claim, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his 

‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and formulaic 

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545, (2007). A complaint must contain sufficient factual 

matters, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). We accept the allegations in the

complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 

Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 872 (11th Cir. 2008).

“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising 

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

“Whether a claim ‘arises under’ federal law ‘is governed by the “well-pleaded 

Case: 17-12571 Date Filed: 04/05/2018 Page: 2 of 4 
3

complaint rule,” which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal 

question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.’” 

Dunlap v. G&L Holding Grp., Inc., 381 F.3d 1285, 1290 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting 

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). 

“The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that 

no State shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the 

laws,’ which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be 

treated alike.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). 

A plaintiff must show that he has been treated differently on account of some form 

of invidious discrimination tied to a constitutionally protected interest. Sweet v. 

Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 467 F.3d 1311, 1319 (11th Cir. 2006). 

We conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Moni’s amended 

complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. 

As to Moni’s claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1346, 21 U.S.C. § 848, and 18 U.S.C. § 

242, none of these statutes provide a private right of action, and so he fails to state 

a claim for which relief can be granted. Moreover, we agree with the district court 

in its Order of May 11, 2017, that the amended complaint contains insufficient 

“alleged facts that would support a cause of action under any of the federal statutes 

listed” (including 18 U.S.C. § 1961 with respect to which a private cause of action 

could have existed). Because we agree with the district court that there is no 

Case: 17-12571 Date Filed: 04/05/2018 Page: 3 of 4 
4

federal question presented in Moni’s amended complaint we do not need to discuss 

the adequacy of Moni’s state law cause of action for IIED. Accordingly, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 17-12571 Date Filed: 04/05/2018 Page: 4 of 4