2010 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 Third C ir c uit 3-30-2010 

# Emmett M ann v

. J ohn B re nne r P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2461

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 2010 D e c i sion s by an authori 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 more 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 " E mme tt M ann v

. J o hn B re nne r " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1609. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010/1609NOT 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- 2461

_____________ E M M E T T J . M A N N ,

A ppel l ant v. JO H N S . B R E N N E R ; D A V E R E D S H A W ; D O N H O Y T ; R O B E R T A . K IN S L E Y ; M A T T JA C K S O N ; C IT Y O F Y O R K ; Y O R K C O L L E G E ; R E D E V E L O P M E N T A U T H O R IT Y O F T H E C IT Y O F Y O R K ; STEVEN R . BU FF I NG TON ; OFFI CER W ENTZ

_______________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 06- cv- 1715) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Y vett e K ane

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 23, 2010 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , F U E N T E S a n d J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: M ar ch 30, 2010)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________T he C i tydefe ndant s i ncl ude J ohn S. B r enner( M ay or ) , D on H oyt , M attJ acks on, 1 D a v e R e d sh a w , S tev e n R . B u f f in g to n , O f

f ice r W e n tz, a n d th e R e d e v e lo p m e n t A u th o rity o f th e Ci tyo f

Yo r k . T h e Yo r k Co l l e g e d e f e n d a n t s i n c l u d e Yo r k Co l l e g e a n d Ro b e r tA. K in s le y , a p ri v a te c o n tr a c to r. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1331. 2 2 J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . E m m ettM ann appe al s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng the mot i ons t o di s m i s s of defe ndant s C i tyof Y or k ( the “Ci ty ”) , i t s agent s , and Y or k C ol l ege. H e al s o appea l s the 1 D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n to s ta yd is c o v e ry p e n d in g d is p o s itio n o f th e m o tio n s to d is m is s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d wi l l a f f i r m. 2 I . Backg r ound M a n n o w n e d a h o u s e in Y o rk , P e n n s y lv a n ia , w h ic h h e re n te d to c o lle g e s tu d e n ts . I n 2004 and 2005, Y or k C ol l ege s oughtt o acqui r e pr opertyforaddi t i onal s tudenthous i ng and thus appr oache d M ann abouts el l i ng hi s hous e. H ow ever , the part i es coul d notagr ee on a s al es pr i ce. A ts om e l at ert i m e, M ann’ s hom e w as ci t ed forcode vi ol at i ons and d e c l a r e d “ b l i g h t e d ” b y th e C i ty. T he C i tyi ni t i at ed conde m nat i on pr ocee di ngs agai ns tM ann i n the C our tof C om m on Pl eas of Y or k C ounty . A l though M ann s t i pul at ed t o the bl i ghtdet erm i nat i on, h e a rg u e d th a t th e C itya n d Y o rk C o lleg e h a d c o n sp ire d to h a ra ss a n d in tim id a te h im in to s el l i ng hi s pr opertyfora r educe d val ue. M ann ac cus ed the def endant s of m ani pul at i ng b u i l d i n g c o d e s a n d o r d i n a n c e v i o l a t i o n s t o b r i n g i mp r o p e rc h a r g e s a g a i n s th i m, i nt ent i onal l ydamagi ng hi s pr operty , and l odgi ng otheruns peci fi ed fa l s e cr i m i nal char ges3

agai ns thi m . T he C our tof C om m on Pl eas i s s ued an opi ni on on O ct ober6, 2006, i n w hi ch it fo u n d th e tak in g to b e p ro p e r. It als o c o n c lu d e d th a t th e C ityh a d n o t ac ted in b a d f a ith orcomm i t t ed fr aud i n pur s ui ng condemnat i on pr ocee di ngs agai ns tM ann. T he c o n d e m n a t i o n c o n c l u d e d i n M a y 2 0 0 7 , w h e n M a n n w a s p a i d $ 1 6 6 , 0 0 0 f o rh i s p r o p e r ty. M eanw hi l e, on A ugus t31, 2006, M ann fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n the U ni t ed St at es D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia, p u rsu a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 , in w h ich h e a lleg e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts c o n sp ire d to in tim id a te a n d h a ra ss h im in to acc ept i ng a s i gni fi cant l yr educe d pr i ce f orhi s pr operty . A s M ann as s ert s , “[t ] hei rpl an, plai nlypu t , w as t o d ri ve [m e] cr azy . ” (A pp . 34 . ) Th e def end ants fi l ed m oti on s t o d i sm i ss M ann’ s compl ai nt , w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed, gi vi ng M ann l eave t o r epl ead. T he D istric t C o u rt in stru c ted M a n n o n h o w to c u re th e d e f icie n c ies in h is o rig in a l co m p lain t, and he s ubs equent l yfi l ed tw o amended compl ai nt s . M ann’ s thi r d ver s i on of the c o m p lain t, w h ich w a s d ism iss e d o n th e d e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n s, is th e su b jec t o f th is a p p e a l. M ann’ s appea l ul t i m at el yboi l s dow n t o tw o over ar chi ng i s s ues . Fi r s t , he cont ends th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a p p lied th e w ro n g leg a l sta n d a rd in a ss e ss in g th e m o tio n s to d ism iss u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 2 (b )(6 ), an d th e n e rre d in d ism iss in g h is cl ai m s underthats t andar d. Second, he ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ti m pr oper l ys t ay ed d is c o v e ry w h ile it c o n s id e re d th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n s to d is m is s .4

I I . D i s cus s i on W e have pl enaryr evi ew overthe ques t i on of w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our tappl i ed the c o rr e c t le g a l s ta n d a rd in e v a lu a tin g th e m o tio n s to d is m is s . P hi l l i ps v. C ount

y of A l l egheny , 515 F. 3d 224, 230 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . W e r evi ew “ques t i ons conce rni ng the s cope o r o p p o rt u n ity f

o r d is c o v e ry” f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . I

n r e O r thopedi c Bone Scr ew P r od. Li ab. Li t ig. , 2 6 4 F .3 d 3 4 4 , 3 6 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). A . Moti on s to D ism iss 1 . Standa rd In e v alua ti n g a m o ti o n to d ism iss fo r fa il u re to state a c lai m u n d er R u le 12 (b)(6 ), th e D istric t C o u rt m u st a c c e p t th e p lain tiff ’s w e ll-p lea d e d a lleg a tio n s a s tru e a n d d ra w a ll re a s o n a b le in f

e re n c e s in h is f

a v o r. P hi l l i

ps , 515 F. 3d at231. T he compl ai nt ’ s “[f ] actual al l egat i ons m us tbe enough t o r ai s e a r i ghtt o r el i ef a bove the s pecul at i ve l evel . ” Id . at 234 ( quot i ng B e ll A tl. C o rp . v. T w o m b ly , 550 U . S. 544, 555 ( 2007) ) . T hus , t o s ur vi ve a m ot i on t o di s m i s s underR ul e 12( b) ( 6) , a pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege f act s s uffi ci entt o “nudge [hi s ] cl ai m s acr os s the l i ne fr om conce i vabl e t o pl aus i bl e. ” I d. ( quot i ng T

w o m b ly , 550 U .S . a t 5 7 0 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rtu sed the c o rrect st an d ard in ev alua ti n g M an n ’s claim s. It d e d ica ted a n e n tire s e c tio n o f its o p in io n to d isc u ss in g th e p ro p e r sta n d a rd u n d e r R u le 12( b) ( 6) and not ed thata mot i on t o di s m i s s s houl d be gr ant ed w hen “t aki ng al l fac tual al l egat i ons and i nfer ence s as true, the movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erofM an n fa il s to c it e e ith er Tw om bl y orthe “pl aus i bi l i ty ” s t andar d i tus her ed i n, i ns t ead 3 choos i ng t o r el yon the now defunc t“no- s et - of- fac t s ” s t andar d of C onl ey v . G i bs on , 355 U . S. 41, 45- 46 ( 1957) ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at22) , w hi ch the Supr eme C our ts quar el yr ej ect ed i n T w o m b ly . S e e T

w o m b ly , 550 U . S. at563 ( C onl ey ’ s no- s et - of- fac t s l anguage “has earned i t s r et i r ement . T he phr as e i s bes tfor got t en as an i ncompl et e, negat i ve gl os s on an ac ce p ted p lead ing stan d ard ”). E v e n if th e D istric t C o u rt h a d a p p lied th e w ro n g leg a l sta n d a rd , tha t w o u ld n o t in 4 i t s el f ent i t l e M ann t o r el i ef be caus e ourr evi ew of a mot i on t o di s m i s s forfai l ur e t o s t at e a cl ai m i s de novo . McTer nan v. C i t y of Y ork, P a. , 5 7 7 F . 3 d 5 2 1 , 5 2 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). 5 law .” (A p p . 1 6 .) T h e D istric t C o u rt re c o g n ize d th a t th e m o tio n s w e re g o v e rn e d b yR u le 12( b) ( 6) as i nt erpr et ed bythe Supr eme C our ti n Tw om bl y and thi s C our ti n P hi l l i ps ( i d. at 1 5 -16 ), an d itco n ti n u all yref erred to tho se p ri n ciples in it s d iscu ssion o f e ac h o f M an n ’s claim s. A cc o rdin g ly , there is no m eritto M an n ’s co n tention that the D istri ct C o u rt

3 app l i ed the w rong legal st and ard i n ev al uati ng the m oti on s t o d i sm i ss. 4

2 . Me rits M a n n a lso a rg u e s th a t ev e n if th e D istric t C o u rt u se d th e c o rre c t leg a l sta n d a rd , it err ed i n appl y i ng the s t andar d t o di s m i s s hi s cl ai m s . Speci fi cal l y , M ann cont ends thathe adeq uatel yst at ed a clai m for r el i ef on three groun ds: (1) the d efen dan t s r et al i at ed ag ai nst hi m , i n vi ol at i on of the Fi r s tA m endment , byi m pos i ng heft i erfi nes aft erM ann “us ed leg a l p ro c e ss ” to su c c e ss f u llyd e f e n d h im se lf

a g a in st o th e r f

in e s; (2 ) th e d e f

e n d a n ts m a licio u slyp ro se c u ted h im in v io latio n o f th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t; an d (3 ) th e d e f e n d a n ts vi ol at ed hi s Four t eenth A m endmentr i ght s t o due pr oces s and equa l pr ot ect i on byus i ng har as s m entand i nt i m i dat i on t o “r ai l r oad[ hi m ] i nt o a conde m nat i on. ” (Id . at 41 -42 . )6 a . F i rs tA m endm ent R etal i at i on M ann’ s Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m i s bas ed on the as s ert i on that , aft erhe defe nded hi m s el f i n courtagai ns t$2, 000 i n fi nes forcode vi ol at i ons , defe ndant B uffi ngt on ci t ed M ann w i th another$2, 000 i n fi nes i n r et al i at i on forM ann’ s i ni t i al s ucce s s ful defe ns e. T o es t abl i s h a Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m pr edi cat ed on 42 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 , a p lain tiff m u st p ro v e th e f

o llo w in g e lem e n ts: (1 ) h e e n g a g e d in c o n stitu tio n a llyp ro tec ted c o n d u c t; (2 ) th e d e f e n d a n t to o k a d v e rse a c tio n su f f icie n t to det era per s on of or di naryfi r m nes s fr om exer ci s i ng hi s r i ght s ; and ( 3) the adve r s e ac t i on w a s p ro m p te d b yp la in tif f ’s p ro te c te d c o n d u c t. Mi t chell v. H orn , 318 F. 3d 523, 530 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). O urr evi ew of the r ecor d l eads us t o agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatM ann fa i l ed t o pr oper l yal l ege a r et al i at i on cl ai m . N ow her e i n M ann’ s thi r d amended compl ai ntdoes h e a lleg e f

a c ts th a t co u ld re a so n a b lysu p p o rt th e n e c e ss a ry“ c a u sa l li n k ” b e tw e e n h is pr ot ect ed s peec h ( s ucce s s ful l ydefe ndi ng the i ni t i al fi nes ) and the unl aw ful r et al i at i on ( an a d d itio n a l $ 2 ,0 0 0 f

in e ). I d. I ns t ead, M ann makes vague a nd concl us oryal l egat i ons that he w as as s es s ed s om e unr eas onabl e fi ne fors om e uns peci fi ed vi ol at i on, i n r et al i at i on for “c h o [o sing ] t o u se leg al pro ce ss as a w ayto p rotec t and ex tend h is r igh ts. ” (A p p . 5 0 . ) See Ashc r of

tv. I qbal , __ U . S. __, 129 S. C t . 1937, 1950 ( 2009) ( a compl ai ntm us tdo m o re tha n all eg e a “m ere p o ssibil ityo f m isco n d u ct; ” itm u st sho w the p lead er’s ent i t l ementt o r el i ef) . T hes e al l egat i ons fal l fars hor tof w hati s r equi r ed t o puttheA s the D i stri ctC ou rtob served , “[a]l tho ug h [M ann ] w as stronglyenco uraged t o d o so 5 i n the C our t ’ s pr evi ous or der , [M ann] s t i l l does noti dent i fythe dat e, the forum , or s p e c if ic a lly w h a t c h a rg e s w e re in v o lv e d in th e s e ‘c ri m in a l c h a rg e s .’” (A p p . 1 8 .) 7 d e f e n d a n ts o n n o tic e o f

th e c la im s a n d th e b a s e s f o r t h e m . See Phi l l i

ps , 515 F. 3d at233 ( underR ul e 8( a) , pl ai nt i ff mustpl ead e nough fac t s t o pr ovi de the def endant“fa i rnot i ce” o f th e c laim a n d th e “ ‘g ro u n d s’ o n w h ich th e c laim re sts ” ) (c itatio n o m itt e d )); B ar aka v. McG r eev ey , 481 F. 3d 187, 195 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( on a mot i on t o di s m i s s , “w e ar e not compel l ed t o acc eptuns uppor t ed conc l us i ons and unw arr ant ed i nfer ence s , ora l egal concl us i on couche d as a fa ctual al l egat i on” ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ) . A ccor di ngl y , M ann has notes t abl i s hed thathe w as unl aw ful l yr et al i at ed a g a in st in v io latio n o f

th e F irst A m e n d m e n t. b . Mal i ci ous P r os ecut i on M a n n n e x t co n ten d s th a t d e f e n d a n ts B u f

f in g to n , W e n tz, a n d R e d sh a w v io late d h is F o u rth A m e n d m e n t rig h t to b e f re e f ro m m a licio u s p ro se c u tio n b yc iti n g h im w ith th o u s a n d s o f

d o lla rs in f

in e s a n d b ri n g in g o th e r “ f ri v o lo u s c ri m in a l c h a rg e s ” a g a in s t h im . 5 T o s ta te a c la im f

o r m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n p re d ic a te d o n th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t, a pl ai nt i ff mustdemonstr at e that( 1) the def endantact ed mal i ci ous l yfora purpos e other than br i ngi ng the pl ai nt i ff t o j us t i ce w hen ( 2) he i ni t i at ed a c r i m i nal pr ocee di ng ( 3) w i thoutpr obabl e ca us e ( 4) w hi ch ende d i n the pl ai nt i ff’ s favor , but( 5) caus ed the p la in tif f to s u f f e r a d e p ri v a tio n o f

lib e rt yc o n s is te n t w ith a s e iz u re . Joh nson v. Kno rr , 477 F . 3 d 7 5 , 8 1 -82 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ).8

E ven though on i t s thi r d i t er at i on, M ann’ s compl ai ntw hol l yfai l s t o al l ege thatthe d e f e n d a n ts a c te d w ith o u t p ro b a b le c a u s e in c itin g h im f o r c o d e v io la tio n s . See Estat e of Sm i th v. Mar as co , 318 F. 3d 497, 522 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( an “e s s ent i al el ementof a mal i ci ous p ro se c u tio n c laim ” is th a t p lain tiff p ro v e lac k o f

p ro b a b le c a u se ). F u rth e rm o re , M a n n d id notal l ege thathe s uffe r ed a “ depr i vat i on of l i bertycons i s t entw i th the conc eptof a s e iz u re ” a s a re s u lt o f

th e c ri m in a l c ita tio n p ro c e e d in g s . Johns on , 477 F. 3d at82. T he onl ydepr i vat i on M ann cl ai m s t o have s uffe r ed i s “l egal fee s , courtcos t s , and i nterm i nab l e i nco nv enience. ” (A pp . 38 . ) Such dep ri vati on s ar e i nsuff i ci ent t o est abli sh th a t M a n n w a s th e v ic tim o f a m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n u n d e r t h e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. See D iB el la v. B or ough of

B eachwood , 4 0 7 F .3 d 5 9 9 , 6 0 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (p lain tiff s f a iled to s t at e a § 1983 mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m beca us e the i nconveni ence of att endi ng tr i al w as not a Fo urth A m end m ent s ei zure; theirtravel w as not r estri ct ed, theydid not post b ail , an d theyd id n o t hav e to re p o rtto p retri al serv ices). A cc o rdin g ly , the D istri ct C o u rt p ro p e rl yd is m is s e d M a n n ’s m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n c la im .

c . D ue P rocess M ann al l eges a vi ol at i on of hi s s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s r i ght s bas ed on the defe nd ants ’ unl aw ful agreem ent “t o d epri ve [h i m ] of hi s r i gh t s throug h the unlaw ful use o f state a u tho ri tyas a w ayto co erc e h im into c o m p li an ce w ith their w ishe s. ” (A p p ell an t’ s B r . at18. ) M ann’ s due pr oces s cl ai m thathe w as unfai r l yhar as s ed i nt o a conde m nat i on pr ocee di ng i s barr ed bythe doctr i ne of c ol l at er al es t oppel . C ol l at er al es t oppel appl i esW e have hel d that“[t ] o defe ata fi ndi ng of i dent i tyof the i s s ues forpr ecl us i on 6 purpos es , the di ffe r ence i n the appl i cabl e l egal s t andar ds m us tbe ‘ s ubs t ant i al . ’ ” R ayt ech C o rp . v. W

h ite , 5 4 F .3 d 1 8 7 , 1 9 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). Ju d g e D o rn e ye v a lu a ted M a n n ’s c laim 9 w h e n : “( 1 ) th e id e n tica l issu e w a s p re v io u slya d ju d ica ted ; (2 ) th e iss u e w a s a c tu a lly lit ig a ted ; (3 ) th e p re v io u s d e ter m in a tio n w a s n e c e ss a ryto th e d e c isio n ; an d (4 ) th e p a rty bei ng pr ecl uded fr om r el i t i gat i ng the i s s ue w as ful l yr epr es ent ed i n the pr i oract i on. ” Jean Al exande rC os m et i cs , I nc. v. L’ O r eal

U SA , I nc. , 458 F. 3d 244, 249 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . W e have pl enaryr evi ew overa di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on r egar di ng c o lla te ra l e s to p p e l. Id . at248. M ann di s put ed onl ythe i dent i tyof the i s s ues pr ong i n the D istric t C o u rt a n d n o w ra ise s th e a d d iti o n a l ar g u m e n t th a t th e iss u e w a s n e v e r a c tu a lly litig a te d . T h e H o n o ra b le S h e ry l A n n D o rn e yp re sid e d o v e r th e c o n d e m n a tio n p ro c e e d in g in the C ou rtof C om m on P l eas of Y ork C ou nty . Judg e D orneyrej ect ed M ann ’s preci se ar gum entthatthe def

endant s har as s ed and i nt i m i dat ed hi m i nt o s el l i ng hi s pr opertyforan unr eas onabl yl ow pr i ce. ( A pp. 69 ( des cr i bi ng M ann’ s ar gum entthatthe C i tyhad “ba d fai th ort ai nt ed mot i ve” i n obt ai ni ng hi s pr operty“foras nom i nal pr i ce a s pos s i bl e” a nd not i ng that“w e fa i l t o s ee how thi s ar gum enti s val i d. ”) . ) A ddr es s i ng M ann’ s cont ent i on thatthe C i ty“ac t ed i n bad fa i th byact i ng i n cons or tw i th Y or k C ol l ege t o obt ai n the pr opert [y ] as i nexpens i vel yas pos s i bl e, ” J udge D orneyconcl uded thatM ann had “ not over come t he hea vybur den t o s how thatthe [Ci ty ] has comm i t t ed fr aud oran abus e of di s cr et i on. ” (I

d. at68- 69. ) T hi s r ecor d m akes cl earthatthe i dent i cal i s s ue M ann s eeks 6unders t at e conde m nat i on l aw , w hi ch pl ace s a “he avy ” bur den on the pl ai nt i ff t o pr ove

that“the conde m nori s gui l tyof fr aud, bad fa i th orhas comm i t t ed an a bus e of di s cr et i on. ” ( A pp. 68 ( quot i ng D ow ni ngt ow n A r ea Sch. D is t . v. D iFr anes co , 557 A . 2d 819, 820 ( Pa. C om m w . C t . 1989) ) . ) M ann appa r ent l yas ks us t o eval uat e hi s cl ai m undera gene r al due pr oces s rubr i c, w hi ch foc us es on w hether“the al l eged ha r as s m ent‘ r emove[d] or s i gni fi cant l yal t er [ed] ’ pl ai nt i ffs ’ l i bertyand pr opertyi nt er es t s . ” Thom as v. I ndepende nce Tw p. , 463 F. 3d 285, 297 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A l though w e r ecogni ze that the pl ai nt i ff’ s bur den i s gr eat eri n the cont extof s t at e conde m nat i on l aw than i n pl eadi ng a due pr oces s vi ol at i on, w e fi nd thatthe i s s ue addr es s ed and r es ol ved i n the c o n d e m n a tio n p ro c e e d in g is “ in s u b s ta n c e th e s a m e ” a s M a n n ’s d u e p ro c e s s c la im . R ayt ech Corp. , 54 F. 3d at193. B oth s chemes r equi r e a c our tt o deci de w hetherthe defe ndant s engage d i n unl aw ful conductt o depr i ve the pl ai nt i ff of hi s pr operty , and M ann h a s f a ile d to p e rs u a d e u s th a t th e le g a l s ta n d a rd s a re s u b s ta n tia lly d if f e re n t in th is c a s e . W e ther efor e conc l ude thatthe i dent i typr ong i s s at i s fi ed. M ann appa r ent l yconce des thathe i s col l at er al l yes t opped fr om r el i t i gat i ng w hether 7 the conde m nat i on act i on w as br oughti n bad fa i th. H e s t at es thatJ udge D orney“dec i ded ( and qui t e corr ect l ys o) thatthe af or ement i oned mi s conductw as notr el evantt o the i s s ue of the C ondemnor ha vi ng the pow ert o t ake the s ubj ectpr operty , nordi d the obvi ous m i s conducti nt er fer e w i th the pr ocedur e w hi ch eve ntual l ydeci ded ‘ j us tcompensa t i on. ’ ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at27. ) H ow ever , M ann mai nt ai ns thatal though “J udge D orneydeci ded pr oper l yon the conde m nat i on i s s ue, ” s he fa i l ed t o addr es s “anyci vi l r i ght s i s s ues w hi ch m ayhave s har ed a pos s i bl e comm onal i tyof fa ct s . ” (I d. ) For that r eason, w e add res s M ann ’s du e process cl ai m , as w el l as hi s r et al i at i on and m al i ci ou s prosecut i on cl ai m s. 10 to ra is e o n a p p e a l w a s a c tu a lly litig a te d in th e s ta te c o n d e m n a tio n p ro c e e d in g . A c c o rd in g ly , to th e e x ten t th a t M a n n se e k s to re lit ig a te w h e th e r th e d e f e n d a n ts u n law f

u lly coer ced hi m i nt o s el l i ng hi s pr opertyfora nomi nal val ue, the i s s ue i s barr ed bycol l at er al e sto p p e l. 7 M ann’ s compl ai ntal s o r ai s es , though notexpl i ci t l y , a “c l as s of one” equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m . T he Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endmentr equi r es th a t s im ila rl ys itu a te d in d iv id u a ls b e tr e a te d a lik e . C i t y of C l ebur ne, Tex. v. C l ebur ne L i vi ngC tr. , 4 7 3 U . S . 4 3 2 , 4 3 9 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . A n e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a i m m a y b e b r o u g h tb y a11

“ c las s o f o n e ,” a n in d iv id u a l cla im in g “ th a t [ ]h e h a s b e e n in ten tio n a llytre a ted d if f e re n tly f ro m o th e rs s im ilarlysitu a ted a n d th a t th e re is n o ra tio n a l b a sis f o r th e d if f e re n c e in tr eatm ent . ” V

i l l . of W i l l ow br ook v. O l ech , 5 2 8 U. S. 5 6 2 , 5 6 4 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) . To s t at e a c l ai m underthe “c l as s of one” theory , a pl ai nt i ff musts how that“( 1) the def endant treat ed h i m differ entl yfrom other s si m i l arl ysi tuated, (2) the d efen dan tdid so i nt ent i onal l y , and ( 3) ther e w as no r at i onal bas i s forthe di ffe r ence i n tr eatm ent . ” P hi l l i ps , 515 F. 3d at243 ( quot i ng Hi l lv . Bo r o u g h o f Ku t z t o wn , 4 5 5 F .3 d 2 2 5 , 2 3 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 )) . I n O l ech , the Supr eme C our tuphel d the pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m thatthe vi l l age vi ol at ed the E qual Pr ot ect i on C l aus e byarbi tr ar i l ydemandi ng a 33- footeas ementt o connec ther pr opertyt o the muni ci pal w at ers uppl yw hi l e onl ydemandi ng a 15- footeas ementfr om o th e r p ro p e rt yo w n e rs . O l ech , 528 U . S. at565. T he Supr eme C our tl at ercl ar i fi ed that “[w ] hats eems t o have be en s i gni fi canti n O l ech . . . [w as ] the compl ai ntal l eged thatthe boar d cons i s t ent l yr equi r ed onl ya 15- footeas ement , buts ubj ect ed O l ech t o a 33- foot eas ement . ” E ngquis tv. O r . D ep’ tof A gr i c. , 5 5 3 U .S . 5 9 1 , 1 2 8 S . C t. 2 1 4 6 , 2 1 5 3 (2 0 0 8 ). In h is c o m p lain t, M a n n se ts f o rth g e n e ra l alle g a tio n s th a t “h e w a s s u b jec ted to u n eq u al an d u n au tho ri ze d m istrea tm en t on a se lecti v e b asis b ec au se o f th e d ef en d an ts[’] u n law fu l des ir e f

o r his p rop erty , ” in v iolati o n o f h is r igh t t o eq u al pro tecti o n . (A p p . 4 9 . ) A l though he al l eges that“[o] therci t i zens ar e nottr eat ed i n thi s fas hi on, part i cul ar l ythe pol i t i cal l eade r s of the C i tyof Y or k” ( i d. at41) , M ann fa i l s t o pl ead thathe w as tr eat ed di ffe r ent l ythan others i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed i ndi vi dual s , thati s , otherpr opertyow ner s ofM ann ur ges us t o appl ydi ct a cont ai ned i n ourdeci s i on i n A l s t on v. P arker , 363 F. 3d 8 229 ( 3d C i r . 2004) , t o det erm i ne thathe w as ent i t l ed t o di s coverybefor e di s m i s s al . T he fac t s of A l

s t on ar e ea s i l ydi s t i ngui s habl e fr om thos e i n the ca s e athand. Forone, the pl ai nt i ff i n A l

s t on w as pr o s e a n d a p riso n e r in v o lu n tar ilyc o m m itt e d to a p sy c h iatric h o sp ital. F u rth e rm o re , d e sp ite o u r re c o g n iti o n th a t “c o n f in e d p riso n e r[ s]” f

a c e d if f icu lty 12 bl i ght ed s tructur es i n the C i tyof Y or k. W hi l e O l ech m a yn o t re q u ire p lain tiff s to “i dent i fyi n the compl ai nts peci fi c i ns t ance s w her e other s have be en tr eat ed di ffe r ent l y , ” P hi l l i ps , 515 F. 3d at245, the compl ai nti s s t i l l defi ci ent . W i thoutanyal l egat i on regar ding other bl i gh t ed p ropertyow ners, M ann si m plycann ot “nudg e [his ] cl ai m s acr oss the l i ne fr om conce i vabl e t o pl aus i bl e. ” I d. at234 ( quot i ng T

w o m b ly , 5 5 0 U . S . at 57 0 ); se e a lso Hill , 455 F. 3d at239 ( “cl as s of one” cl ai m fai l ed bec aus e pl ai nt i ff, a B or ough M anage r , di d “notal l ege the exi s t ence of s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed i ndi vi dual s – i . e. , B or ough M a n a g e rs – w h o [ th e M a y o r] tre a ted d if f e re n tlyth a n h e tre a ted [ p lain tiff ]” ). M a n n ’s b a ld as s ert i ons thatthe def

endant s vi ol at ed hi s r i ghtt o equal pr ot ect i on beca us e “he w as se lec tiv e lya n d v in d ictiv e lyc ited a n d p ro se c u ted b yth e C ityin a n e f f o rt to f o rc e h im in to c o o p e ra tio n w ith Y o rk C o lleg e ” (A p p . 4 4 ), “a m o u n t to n o th in g m o re th a n a ‘f o rm u laic r eci t at i on of the el ement s ’ of a c ons t i tut i onal di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m . ” I qbal , 129 S. C t . at 1951 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed M ann’ s equal p r o t e c t i o n c l a i m. B . D iscovery M ann cont ends thati tw as an abus e of di s cr et i on forthe D i s tr i ctC our tt o s t ay d isc o v e ryw h ile it c o n sid e re d th e d e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n s to d ism iss . In c e rta in 8i n b r i n g i n g c i v i l r i g h t s a c t i o n s “ o wi n g t o th e i ri n c a r c e r a t i o n o ri n s t i tu t i o n a l i z a t i o n , ” we

concl uded thatthe di s tr i ctcourtdi d noterri n fai l i ng t o or derdi s coverybeca us e “i ti s not es s ent i al atthe pl eadi ng s t age. ” Id . at233 n. 6, 236. M or eover , the ce ntr al hol di ng of the cas e w as thatthe di s tr i ctcourti m pr oper l yappl i ed a s tr i ngentpl eadi ng s t andar d that c o n f lic te d w ith R u le 8 (a )’ s n o tic e p le a d in g . Id . at232 ( “[T] he l ack of di s coveryw as not the r eal barr i erbl ocki ng A l s t on’ s path t o r el i ef. R ather , i tw as the s tr i ngentpl eadi ng sta n d a rd p re su p p o se d b yth e p a rties a n d th e D istric t C o u rt.”). A c c o rd in g ly , w e d e c lin e to extr apol at e the r eas oni ng of A l s t on t o thi s cas e, br oughtbya r epr es ent ed partyand pr oper l yeval uat ed underR ul e 8( a) ’ s not i ce pl eadi ng s t andar d. 13 c irc u m sta n c e s it m a yb e a p p ro p ria te to sta yd isc o v e ryw h ile e v a lu a tin g a m o tio n to d is m is s w h e re , if

th e m o tio n is g ra n te d , d is c o v e ry w o u ld b e f u tile . See I

qbal , 1 2 9 S . C t. a t 1 9 5 4 (“ B e c a u se re sp o n d e n t’s c o m p lain t is d e f icie n t u n d e r R u le 8 , h e is n o t en tit led to d i s c o v e ry . ” ) . Th a ti s p r e c i s e l yth e c a s e h e r e . As l a i d o u ta b o v e , n o n e o f M a n n ’ s c l a i ms enti t l e him t o rel i ef. T hat, as M ann con t end s, he co uld have produ ced “a l i t anyof f act s” s ubs t ant i at i ng hi s cl ai m s ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at30) , i f he ha d m or e t i m e t o conduct d is c o v e ry, m is s e s th e m a rk . S e e Mitch e ll v. McN e il , 487 F. 3d 374, 379 ( 6th C i r . 2007) ( beca us e pl ai nt i ffs ’ compl ai ntfai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m forr el i ef, “i tfol l ow s thatthe di s tr i ct courtdi d noterri n gr ant i ng defe ndant s ’ R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on befor e perm i t t i ng di s coverybypl ai nt i ffs ”) . A m ot i on t o di s m i s s pur s uantt o R ul e 12( b) ( 6) t es t s the l egal s uffi ci encyof a c l ai m , and ther efor e maybe dec i ded on i t s fac e w i thoutext ens i ve fa ctual d e v e lo p m e n t. S e e Ne i t

z ke v . Wi l l i a ms , 4 9 0 U .S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 6 -2 7 (1 9 8 9 ) (th e p u rp o se o f R u le 12( b) ( 6) i s t o “s tr eaml i ne[] l i t i gat i on bydi s pens i ng w i th needl es s di s coveryand fa ctfind ing ”); C hudas am a v. M az da Mot orC or

p. , 123 F. 3d 1353, 1367 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( “A m ot i on t o di s m i s s bas ed on fa i l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m forr el i ef s houl d . . . be r es ol vedM a n n su g g e sts th a t th e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld h a v e g ra n ted h im lea v e to a m e n d h is 9 c o m p lain t. B e c a u se M a n n w a s p e rm itt e d to d o so tw ice b e f o re th e p re se n t m o tio n s to di s m i s s w er e fi l ed, w e thi nk the D i s tr i ctC our tw as w el l w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on i n fi ndi ng th a t a llo w in g M a n n a f

o u rt h b ite a t th e a p p le w o u ld b e f u tile . See Phi l l i

ps , 515 F. 3d at 2 4 5 (dism issal w ith o u t l ea v e to a m en d is j u sti fied w h ere the a m en d m en t w o u ld b e f u ti le); Lore nzv. CSX

C or p. , 1 F. 3d 1406, 1413 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( di s tr i ctcourtm aydeny a m e n d m e n t b a se d o n “ re p e a ted f a ilu re to c u re d e f

icie n c ies b ya m e n d m e n ts p re v io u sly al l ow ed”) ( quot i ng Fo m a n v . D a v is , 3 7 1 U . S . 1 7 8 , 1 8 2 (19 6 2 )). 14 b e f o re d isc o v e ryb e g in s.” ); R utm an W i ne C o. v. E . & J. G allo W i nery , 829 F. 2d 729, 738 (9 th C ir. 1 9 8 7 ) (th e id e a th a t d isc o v e rysh o u ld b e p e rm itt e d b e f o re d e c id in g a m o tio n to di s mi s s “ i s un s up po r t e d a nd de fi e s c omm on s e ns e [b e c a us e t ] he pu rpo s e of F. R. Ci v. P. 12( b) ( 6) i s t o enabl e def endant s t o chal l enge the l egal s uffi ci encyof compl ai nt s w i thout su b jec tin g th e m se lv e s to d isc o v e ry ” ). A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its dis cret i on i n st ay i ng dis cov erypen ding res olut i on of the m oti on s t o d i sm i ss. 9 I I I . C oncl usi on Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant i ng th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n s to d is m is s .