2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 11-9-2009 

# Jimmie L . C o ok v

. P hi l Indovin a P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1347

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Jimmie L . C oo k v

. P hi l Indovin a" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 282. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/282NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N O . 09- 1347

___________ J I M M I E L . CO OK, A ppel l ant

v. P HILI NDO VI NA; P HIL ’S FLI CK S & ASSOCIATES; L I

NDA COOK

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( W . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 08- cv- 0054) D i s t r i ctJ udge: D avi d St ew artC er cone

________________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober28, 2009 B efor e: M cK E E , FU E N T E S and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: N ovember9, 2009

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antJ i m m i e L. C ook, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s the or derof the D i s t r i ct C o u rt d ism iss in g h is c o m p lain t f o r la c k o f

su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n a n d /o r f a ilu re to s t a t e a c l a i m u p o n wh i c h r e l i e f c a n b e g r a n t e d . F o rth e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m.2 I. O n J anuary14, 2008, C ook fi l ed a mot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s ( “I FP”) and a c om pl ai nts eeki ng t o pur s ue a c i vi l r i ght s act i on. C ook al l eges thathe and a fr i end, L i nda M ay , w er e s ubj ect ed t o m i s t r eatm entbythe ow nerof a vi deo r ent al s t or e and a cas hi erdur i ng an i nci dentatt he s t or e. A ccor di ng t o t he compl ai nt , C ook and M ayw ent t o t he vi deo s t or e, w her e M aybeca m e enga ged i n a di s put e w i t h t he ca s hi eroverw hether s he ow ed a l at e fe e. Sever al day s l at er , C ook and M ayr eturned t o t he s t or e, and C ook b ec am e e m b roil ed in a c o n fro n tat ion w ith a d iffe ren t cash ier. T h e c ash ier call ed the s tore o w n e r, w h o in tu rn c a lled th e p o lice . C o o k c o m p lain s th a t th e p o lice o f f ice rs tre a ted h im rudel yand r efus ed t o l ethi m expl ai n w hathappene d, r epea t edl yt el l i ng hi m t o “s hutup. ” T h e o w n e r a rriv e d a n d to ld th e o f f ice rs th a t h e w o u ld re so lv e th e situ a tio n . C o o k a ss e rts t hatt he ow neras s aul t ed hi m , at t empt ed t o pr ovoke hi m i nt o a phy s i cal confr ont at i on, and o rd e re d h im to le a v e th e s to re . L at ert hateveni ng, M ayat t empt ed t o r epor tthe i nci dentt o t he l ocal chi ef of pol i ce, and t o one of the off i cer s w ho had r es ponded t o t he ow ner ’ s cal l . C ook compl ai ns t hatt he pol i ce c hi ef f

ai l ed t o r etur n M ay ’ s cal l ; he admi t s thatthe off i cerdi d r eturn t he cal l , al t hough M ayw as notpr es entt o r ece i ve i t . M ayal s o r eques t ed thata pol i ce c rui s er b e s e n t to h e r r e s id e n c e s o th a t s h e c o u ld f ile a c o m p la in t, b u t h e r r e q u e s t w a s d e n ie d . C ook fi l ed thi s compl ai nti n J anuary2008, cl ai m i ng thatthe def endant s ’ conduct w as m ot i vat ed “onl ybeca us e of hi s fr eedom of spe ech a nd hi s s ki n col or , A fr i canH ad the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or dernotrun afoul of the “s epar at e document ” r equi r ement 1 of Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 58( a) , C ook’ s appea l w oul d be unt i m el y . C ook fi l ed h is no ti ce o f a p p ea l on Jan u ary2 3 , 2 0 0 9 , m o re tha n thirtyd ay s af ter th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s N o v e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 o rd e r d ism iss in g h is C o m p lain t. H e d id n o t f ile a m o tio n se e k in g to ext end t i m e, norhas he al l eged thathe di d notr ece i ve not i ce of the entr yof the or der w i t hi n t w enty - one day s . Fed. R . A pp. P. 4( a) ( 5) ( A ) , ( a) ( 6) . H ow ever , C ook fi l ed the n o t i c e o f a p p e a l we l l wi t h i n t h e t i me p r o v i d e d b yRu l e 4 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A) ( i i ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we h a v e ju risd ictio n o v e r C o o k ’s a p p e a l. 3 A m er i can. ” H e al s o s t at es t hatt he l ocal pol i ce c hi ef a nd r es pondi ng offi cer s cons pi r ed wi t h t h e s t o r e o wn e rt o d i s c r i mi n a t e a g a i n s th i m, a n d n e g l e c t e d th e i ro f f i c i a l d u t i e s . On N ovember10, 2008, t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed C ook I FP st atus and di s m i s s ed the compl ai ntforl ack of

s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on, or , i n t he al t ernat i ve, fai l ur e t o s t at e a cl ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c an be gr ant ed. C ook fi l ed hi s not i ce of appea l on J anuary23, 2009. II. W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . O u r rev iew o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s 1 s ua s pont e di s m i s s al of C ook’ s compl ai ntpur s uantt o § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) i s pl enary . See A l l ah v. Sei ver l i ng, 229 F. 3d 220, 223 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . W e mustacc eptas true al l of the a lleg a tio n s c o n tain e d in th e c o m p lain t an d d ra w a ll i n f e re n c e s f ro m th e f a c ts a lleg e d in t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i ff. See Phi l l i ps v. C ount yof A l l egheny , 515 F. 3d 224, 233 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . A pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege i n hi s compl ai nt“‘ enough fa ct s t o r ai s e a rea so n ab le ex p ec tat ion that d isco v eryw il l r ev ea l evid en ce o f’ the n ec essa ryelem en t[s]” of a c aus e of a ct i on. I d. at234 ( quot i ng B el l A t l ant i c v. T w om bl y , 550 U . S. 544, 556T o the e x tent that C o o k ’s co m p lai n t cou ld b e re ad to claim that the p o li ce o ff icers 2 v io late d h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts, h is a ss e rtio n – th a t th e p o lice w o u ld n o t let h im e x p lain w hathappene d i n t he vi deo s t or e and f ai l ed t o fol l ow up phone ca l l s –do nots ugges tt hat he co uld show t hat the p oli ce viol at ed h i s const i tuti on al ri gh t s. 4 (2 0 0 7 )) . W e m a ya f

f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r o n a n yb a s is s u p p o rt e d b yth e re c o rd . S ee F airview T o w n sh ip v . E P A , 7 7 3 F . 2 d 5 1 7 , 5 2 5 n . 1 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). III . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt c o rr e c tly c o n c lu d e d th a t C o o k f a ile d to s ta te a c la im . A pl ai nt i ff a s s er t i ng a ci vi l r i ght s act i on m us ts how thathe w as depr i ved of a r i ghts ecur ed byt he C ons t i tut i on orl aw s of the U ni t ed St at es , and thatthe al l eged de pr i vat i on w as c omm i t t e d u nd e rc ol orof s t a t e l a w . A mer i c a n M fr s . M ut . I ns . Co. v. Sul l i va n, 52 6 U. S. 40, 49- 50 ( 1999) . Pr i vat e conduc ti s excl uded, “no mat t erhow di s cr i m i nat oryor w ron g fu l. ” Id . C o o k ’s co m p lai n t con ce rns c o n d u ct byp ri v ate ind ividu als, an d there fo re does nots t at e a c ogni zabl e cl ai m . T o t he ext entthatC ook cl ai m s thatthe pol i ce con spi red w i t h the vi deo st ore ow ner and em ploy ee t o d i scr i m i nate agai nsthim becau se o f p rotec ted s p ee ch o r his rac e, w e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rtthat the a ll eg ati o n s are c on c l us orya nd t hu s do no ts t a t e a pl a us i bl e c l a i m forr e l i e f. Se e A s hc r of tv. I qb a l , 12 9 S. C t. 1 9 3 7 , 1 9 4 9 -50 (20 0 9 ). 2 W e s ee no i ndi cat i on i n t he r ecor d t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our tgave Cook an oppor tuni t yt o amend hi s compl ai ntaft eri t s i ni t i al s cr eeni ng. “[E] ven w hen a pl ai nt i ff d o es n o t seek leav e to a m en d , if a c o m p lai n t i s v u lnera b le t o [] d ism issal, a D istri ct C o u rt5

m us tperm i ta cur at i ve amendm ent , unl es s an amendm entw oul d be i nequi t abl e orfut i l e. ” A lsto n v . P a rk e r, 3 6 3 F .3 d 2 2 9 , 2 3 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); se e a lso G ra y so n v . M a yv iew S tate H os p. , 293 F. 3d 103, 108 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . N ordoes the D i s t r i ctC our ts peak t o t he i nequi t yorfut i l i t yof s uch an a m endmenti n i t s opi ni on. N onethel es s , aft ercar eful r evi ew of the r ecor d and C ook’ s br i ef on a ppeal , w e conc l ude thatamendm entw oul d have be en fut i l e. V I. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.