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 Third C irc uit 11-6-2009 

# K evin T wi llie v . FBI C leval and OH 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 . 09-3182

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://di git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009

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 by 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 ill 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 by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill 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 . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Kevin T willie v . FBI C leval and OH " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 288. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009/288CL D- 0 2 7 NOT 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- 3182 K E V IN L . T W IL L IE , A ppel l ant

v. S T A T E O F O H IO , C L E V E L A N D F .B .I.; P E N N S Y L V A N IA , R E A D IN G , F .B .I.; P IT T S B U R G H , P A F . B . I.

_____________________________________ 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 ( D . C . C i v. N o. 09- cv- 00013) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a u ric e B . C o h ill

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed ForPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

O ct ober29, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , FI SH E R and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: N ovember6, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM K evi n L . T w i l l i e fi l ed a pr o s e compl ai ntagai ns tvar i ous fi el d offi ces of the F e d e ra l B u re a u o f

In v e stig a tio n (“ F .B .I.”). In h is c o m p lain t, he a llu d e d g e n e ra llyto“r et al i at i on t act i cs ” and “ har as s m ent . ” H e then des cr i bed the ci r cumst ance s that

p re c ip itate d h is a rre st f

o r in d e c e n t as sa u lt i n P e n n sy lv a n ia, h is s e n ten c e f o r th e c rim e , h is deci s i on t o go t o C al i forni a af t erhi s s ent enci ng, and hi s s ubs equentarr es tand extr adi t i on t o Penns y l vani a. T w i l l i e al s o not ed hi s eff or t s i n Penns y l vani a t o gethi s bel ongi ngs and l uggage f

r om a C al i forni a s t or age f aci l i tyand t o have acomm er ci al t ax pr epar err ei s s ue h im a c h e c k . H e a lleg e d th a t th e F .B .I. w a s s o m e h o w in v o lv e d in e f f o rts to tryto h it h im a n d m a k e h im a p a ra p leg ic, th a t F .B .I. ag e n ts o r in f o rm a n ts a re in “ g ro u p se ss io n s” in w hi ch he pa r t i ci pat es , and thatfi el d offi ces of the F. B . I . ar e s pr eadi ng rum or s thathe l i kes boy s i ns t ead of

w om en. Seemi ngl yr el at ed t o hi s cl ai m of rum orm onger i ng, he s t at ed thathe gues s es thata w om an w ho i nvi t ed hi m t o herhous e t o w at ch hers on aft er he metherata r i b fes t i val w as an F. B . I . agent . T w i l l i e s ought$5, 000, 000 i n “puni t i ve d a m a g e s” f

ro m se v e ra l F .B .I. fie ld o f f ice s, m o st o f

w h ich w e re n o t n a m e d a s d e f e n d a n ts in h is c o m p lain t. T he def endant s fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s T w i l l i e’ s compl ai nt , ar gui ng thatthe D i stri ctC ou rtl acked subjectm at t er j uri sdi ct i on and that the all egati on s w ere fr i vo l ou s, n o n sen sical, an d o therw ise fa il ed to state a c lai m ag ains t th em . T h e D istri ct C o u rt gr ant ed the mot i on and di s m i s s ed the compl ai nt . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcons trued the compl ai ntas al l egi ng, underB i vens v. Si x U nknow n N amed A gent s of Fed. B ur eau of N a rc o tic s , 4 0 3 U .S . 3 8 8 (1 9 7 7 ), a c la im o f h a ra s s m e n t a n d re ta lia tio n a g a in s t th e F .B .I.. N ot i ng thata B i vens cl ai m cannotbe mai nt ai ned aga i ns ta fe der al agenc ys uch as the F. B . I . , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the s ui tforfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i efc a n b e g ra n ted . T h e D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t an ya m e n d m e n t to sta te a B iv e n s c laim

a g a in st th e d e f

e n d a n ts w o u ld b e f

u til e , so th e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied T w ill ie le a v e to a m e n d . T w ill ie s u b se q u e n tlyf

iled th e f o llo w in g o n e -lin e “ c laim ” : “I w o u ld lik e to sta te th a tmyc l a i m i s , d u e t o e v e ryth i n g I d o c u me n t e d myc i v i l r i g h t s we r e v i o l a t e d , a n d my am en d m en ts, so I w o u ld li k e re li ef g ran ted.” T h e D istri ct C o u rtco n stru ed T w il li e’s c la im a s a m o tio n f

o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n a n d d e n ie d it. T w i l l i e appe al s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm ent . H e fi l ed a tw o- page i nform al br i ef i n w hi ch he i m pl i ed thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notl i ber al l ycons true hi s compl ai nt ; ci t ed the Fou r t e e nth Am e nd ment ; c l a i med tha thi s r i gh t s a r e be i ng vi ol a t e d e ve ryda ybyU . S. offi cer s ; s t at ed thathi s bel ongi ngs w er e t aken f r om the bas ementof an apartm ent b u ild in g in 1 9 9 2 o r 1 9 9 3 b ya n F .B .I. i n f o rm a n t; an d f

u rth e r sta ted th a t an F .B .I. fie ld o f f ice is d e f a m in g h im b ysa y in g th a t h e d id n o t g ra d u a te f ro m h ig h sc h o o l an d th a t h e is s c h iz o p h re n ic . A ft erT w i l l i e fi l ed hi s br i ef, the def endant s fi l ed a mot i on fors um m aryaff i rm ance of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm ent . I n thei rm ot i on, the def endant s ar gue thatther e i s no b asis in law o r fa ct t o d isag ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ruli n g . T h eyclaim that T w il li e’s im p lic a tio n th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rtd id n o t lib e ra lly c o n s tru e th e c o m p la in t is f ri v o lo u s . T h e yc o n ten d th a t T w ill ie w a iv e d a n yF o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t cla im b yn o t ra isin g it i n th e D istric t C o u rt (a n d th a t itis a lso w ith o u t m e rit if ta k e n o n its f a c e , as th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t ap p lies to a c tio n s b ya sta te n o t a f e d e ra l ac to r, an d a lso w ith o u t m e rit if itw e re tak e n a s a n e f f o rt to a ss e rt a c laim u n d e r th e F if th A m e n d m e n t). T h e d e f e n d a n ts s i m i l ar l ycont end thatthe cl ai m s r el at i ng t o the r emoval of bel ongi ngs i n 1992 or1993 c a n n o t b e ra is e d f

o r t h e f ir s t tim e o n a p p e a l a n d c o u ld n o t s u rv iv e a m o tio n to d is m is s . W e w i l l gr antthe def

endant s ’ m ot i on and s um m ar i l yaff i rm the j udgm entof the D i s tr i c tCourtbe c a us e no s ub s t a nt i a l qu e s t i on i s pr e s e nt e d o n a pp e a l . L. A . R. 27 . 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overa di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of a c om pl ai ntforfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r e l i e f c a n b e g r a n t e d . S e e L u m v . B a n k o f A m . , 3 6 1 F . 3 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 3 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) . We r evi ew a dec i s i on t o denyl eave t o amend, as w el l as a deni al of a mot i on for r econs i der at i on, forabus e of di s cr et i on. See K os hatka v. Phi l a. N ew s paper s , I nc. , 762 F . 2 d 3 2 9 , 3 3 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ); L ak e v . A rno ld, 23 2 F . 3 d 3 6 0 , 3 7 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T h e D is tr ic t C o u rtd id n o t e rrin d is m is s in g th e c o m p la in t a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n ts . D e sp ite T w ill ie’ s c laim to th e c o n tra ry , the D istric t C o u rt e x p licitlya n d o b v io u sly c o n s tru e d T w illie ’s c la im s lib e ra lly, a f f o rd in g h im th e a llo w a n c e s d u e a p ro s e litig a n t. See Est el l e v. G ambl e, 429 U . S. 97, 107 ( 1976) . Si m i l ar l ycons trui ng the compl ai nt l i ber al l y , w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatT w i l l i e pr es ent ed cl ai m s agai ns ta fe der al a g e n c y , n o t ag a in st in d iv id u a l o f f ice rs o r a g e n ts o f

a f e d e ra l ag e n c y . A c laim a g a in st a fede r al agenc ycannotbe r ai s ed underB i vens . See W i l ki e v. R obbi ns , 551 U . S. 537, 550 ( 2007) ( ci t i ng FD I C v. M ey er , 510 U . S. 471 ( 1994) , forthe pr opos i t i on thatB i vens has n o t b e e n e x te n d e d to c la im s a g a in s t f e d e ra l a g e n c ie s ). Fur therm or e, ther e i s an al t ernat i ve bas i s forthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm enti n ther ecor d. See Eri e Tel ecomm s . v. E r i e, 853 F. 2d 1084, 1089 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ( hol di ng that

w e m a ya f

f irm o n a n a ltern a tiv e b a sis su p p o rte d b yth e re c o rd ). T o su rv iv e a m o tio n to di s m i s s , a compl ai ntm us t“‘ s t at e a c l ai m t o r el i ef thati s pl aus i bl e on i t s fac e. ’ ” See A s h c r o f tv . I q b a l , 1 2 9 S . C t . 1 9 3 7 , 1 9 4 9 ( 2 0 0 9 ) ( q u o t i n g B e l l A t l a n t i c C o rp . v . T w o m b l y, 550 U . S. 544, 570 ( 2007) ) . A cl ai m i s fac i al l ypl aus i bl e w hen “the pl ai nt i ff pl eads fac tual c o n ten t th a t allo w s th e c o u rt to d ra w th e re a so n a b le in ter f e re n c e th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t is l i a b l e f o rth e mi s c o n d u c tc h a r g e d . ” I d . ( c i t i n g T wo mb l y ) . T o d e t e rmi n e p l a u s i b i l i ty , we cons i derthe cont extof the cl ai m s and dr aw on ourj udi ci al exper i ence and comm on s e n s e . S e e id . a t 1 9 5 0 . I n thi s cas e, w e nee d notacc eptas true Tw i l l i e’ s gener al al l us i ons t o “r et al i at i on t act i cs ” and “ har as s m ent . ” See I qbal , 129 S. C t . at1949. W e l ook t o the fa ctual a l l e g a t i o n s h e p r e s e n t e d i n s u p p o r to f h i s l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s . S e e i d . a t1 9 5 0 . On r e v i e w, w e c o n c lu d e th a t h is a lleg a tio n s, rif e w ith su p p o sitio n s (h e e v e n u se s th e w o rd “ g u e ss ” in p re s e n tin g o n e a s p e c t o f h is c la im ) a n d la c k in g in s p e c if ic ity, a re s im p ly n o t p la u s ib le . T h e f ac ts he p lead s, ev en co n stru ed li b era ll y , d o n o t al low u s to inf er m o re tha n the m ere pos s i bi l i tyof m i s conduct , w hi ch does nots how us thathe i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. See i d. at 1 9 5 0 . T he D i s tr i ctC our t , i n di s m i s s i ng T w i l l i e’ s compl ai nt , di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng l eave t o amend becaus e an a m endmentw oul d have be en fut i l e. See G r ay s on v. M ayvi ew St at e H os p. , 293 F. 3d 103, 108 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . A s the D i s tr i ctC our ts t at ed, T w i l l i e cou l d n ot am end his cl ai m t o st at e a cl ai m un der B i ven s agai nstthe F . B . I. becau sea cl ai m agai ns tthe F. B . I . cannotbe made underB i vens . See s upr a. Fur therm or e, i ti s not

a p p a r e n th o w Tw i l l i e c o u l d tr a n s f o rm hi s i mpl a u s i b l e c l a i ms i n t o p l a u s i b l e c l a i ms . To the ext entthatT w i l l i e makes us aw ar e, thr ough hi s i nform al br i ef, of cl ai m s thathe w o u ld h a v e w a n ted to p re se n t in a n a m e n d m e n t, w e n o te th a t th o se c laim s a re sim ilarly s p e c u la tiv e a n d im p la u s ib le . F u rth erm o re, th e D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing T w il li e’s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on beca us e the one- s ent ence “cl ai m ” di d nots erve “t o corr ect m ani fes terr or s of l aw orfac tort o pr es entnew l ydi s cover ed evi dence . ” H ar s co C orp. v. Z lo tn ic k i, 7 7 9 F .2 d 9 0 6 , 9 0 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). In sh o rt, th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd ism iss e d T w ill ie’ s c o m p lain t, de n ied lea v e to am en d , an d d en ied T w il li e’s su b seq u en t m o ti o n fo r reco n side rati o n . F u rth erm o re, th ere i s no sub st anti al qu est i on present ed o n ap peal. A ccordi ng l y , w e grantthe A pp el l ees’ m o tio n f o r su m m a rya c tio n , an d w e w ill su m m a rilya f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.