FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ULY 8, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble J ane A . Restani, Chief J udg e, United States Court of International Trade , sitti ng * by desig nation [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 04- 1023 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 01-03399 -CV -FA M ANGEL ENRIQUE VILLEDA ALDANA, JOR GE AUGU STIN PALMA ROMER O, OS CAR LE ON EL GU ERRA EV AN S, LYIONHEL MCI NTOSH RODRIGUEZ, MAREL MARTINEZ, GUMERZINDO LOYO MARTINEZ, RIGOBERTO ALVAYERO HERNAN DEZ, Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , ve rs us DEL MONTE FRESH PR ODUCE, N.A. , INC., BAN DE GU A, Com

pania De De sarrollo De Guatem ala, FRESH DEL MONTE PRODUCE, INC., D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Florida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 8, 200 5) Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, W ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg e, an d R ESTANI , * Judg e. PER CURI AMWhen we re fer to the “complaint,” w e mea n the third amende d complaint filed by 1 Pla int if fs on 5 F e br ua ry 20 03 . T he thi rt

y -o ne pa g e , o ne -h

un dr e d- and -f

our p ara g ra

phc omp la int

is atta c he d a s an a

pp e nd ix to this op ini on . B y the wa y , th e or de r u

po n whic h th is a

pp e a l is ba se d, is an o rd e r d ism iss ingPla int if fs ’ c omp la int

wi tho ut p re

jud ic e : th e dis tr ic t c ourt

a llo we d Pl a int if

fs a stated time in which to amend the ir complaint ag ain. Aldana v. Fr esh De l Monte Produce, Inc., 305 F. Supp.2d 1285, 1308 (S.D. F la. 2003). Plaintiffs chose to appea l instead of ame nding the complaint a four

th time. Bec ause Plaintiffs filed the ir notice of a ppeal be fore the time to amend expired, they

waived the rig ht to amend later the complaint; and the dismissal beca me final for appea l purposes. Schuurman v. Motor V essel “B etty K V”, 798 F .2d 442, 445 (11th Cir. 1986). 2 Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants ( “ Pl ai nti ff

s” ) fi le d atw el ve -c ount

c om pla int a ga ins t D ef en dant- Appe lle e (“ D el Mo nte ”) in the U nit ed S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the So uth er n D istri ct of F lor ida . T he c om

pla int a lle ge d vi olatio ns o f fe de ra l and s ta te law s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d D el Mo nte ’ s m oti on t o di sm iss f or f ai lur e to s ta te 1 ac l a i m o n th e f

e d e r a l l a wc l a i ms , an di td i s mi s s e dth e r e ma i n i n g s t a t e l a wc l a i ms fo r la ck of j ur isd ic tio n. W e af

fi rm in part , va cate in part

and r em an d.

BACKGRO UND

Be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d D el Mo nte ’ s m oti on t o di sm iss , the f ac ts ar e take n f

ro m the w el l pl ea de d a lle ga tio ns o f the c om pla int . C he pst owL td. v. Hunt, 381 F. 3d 10 77, 1080 (11t h Cir. 2004 ) (c itations om itted). P laintiffs are se ve n G ua te m al anc iti ze ns c ur re ntl y r es idi ng i n th e U nit ed

S ta te s. D el Mo nte is a De laware c om

pany ; its principal pl ace of busin ess is in Coral Ga

bles, Florida. In3

G ua te m al a, P la int if

fs w er e of

fi ce rs in SI T RA BI , ana tio na l tra de uni on o f plantatio n w orke rs . A t the ti m e in que sti on, the y r ep re se nte d w orke rs on a Bande guabananaplantatio n inthe m uni ci pa lity

of Mo ra le s, I za

ba l. B an de ugais a who ll y -o wne d s ub si di ary of Del M on te . SI T RA BI and B an de guaw er e ne got ia tin g ane wc oll ec tiv e barg ai nin g ag re em en t f

or w orke rs a t the plantatio n. Whil e tho se ne got ia tio ns w er e ongo ing , Bande guate rm inate d 91 8 w orke rs . S IT RA BI r es pond ed by f ili ng a c om pla int in th e Lab orCo ur t o f Gua te m al a. Nego ti at io ns co nt in ue d. Pl ai nti ff s a lle ge that onor

be fo re 13 O ct obe r 1999 , Bande guahir ed or es ta bli she d an a ge nc y

r el at ion shi p w ithapr ivate , arm ed se curi ty f or ce . P ri va te se curi ty f or ce s are pe rm itt ed

and r eg ulate d inG ua te m al a. A cc or din g to P la int if fs , on 1 3 O ct obe r 1999 , D el Mo nte a ge nts m et w iththe se curi ty

f or ce “ to p lan vi ole nt ac tio n a ga ins t the P la int if fs and o the r SI T RA BI le ad er s. ” P la int if fs do n ot a lle ge th atgo ve rn m en t o ffi ci al s at te nd edth e m eet in g. Ac cording to Plainti ffs, at 5:45 p.m . the sec urity force , which is described as

“ a gang o f ove r 200 he av ily arm ed m en , ” ar ri ve d a t S IT RA BI ’ s he ad quart er s in Morales, Iza

bal. T here, the security

force held two Plaintiffs hostage, thre atened to kill th em , and sho ved them with guns. T hrough out th e evening, other SI TR ABI le ad er s w er e lur ed , abduc te d or oth er w ise f or ce d to the he ad quart er s and s im ilarl yPlaintiffs alleg e that the SI TRABI headqua rters a re one -hundre d meters f

rom the National 2 Pol ic e of fi c e . B a se d o n th is s pa c ia l pr oximi ty , Pl a int if fs c on c lud e that “ it w a s a n a bs olute cer tainty that the National Police we re a war e of a ll events of the night.” 4 de ta ine d. O nc e the se ve n S IT RA BI le ad er s w er e in the he ad quart er s, “ a le ad er of 2 the security

force . . . who claim ed to be the President of the [m unicipal] C ham

ber of Com m erce ,” blam ed Plaintiffs for the area ’ s econom ic decline. The official al so e xpl ai ne d th at

P la int if fs ’ uni on a ct ivi ty

c oul d c au se D el Mo nte to ab an don the plantation . Later, a m ay oral candidate appeare d. While the candidate was at SI T RA BI he ad quart er s, the se curi ty f or ce “ re ac he d ac onse nsus that the tw o m ai n le ad er s of S IT RA BI [ both of

w hom are P la int if

fs in thi s c as e] w oul d be take n to a radio station . . . where they would be force d to deno unce the union .” Plaintiffs also allege that the actual May or of Morales par ticipated. H e, along with “ several ot he r arm edag gr es so rs ,” al le ge dl y acco m pa ni edPla in ti ffs to a rad io st at io n. Ther e, Plaintiffs, at gunpo int, announced the labor dis pute was over and that th ey w er e re sig nin g. Me m be rs of the se curi ty

f or ce the n f

or ce d th e tw o P la int if

fs ba ck to the he ad quart er s. A t he ad quart er s, the y r ec ei ve d af

ac sim ile of

a“ m ode l r es ign at ion form ,” purportedly

sent from

De l Monte or Bandegua. T he Plaintiffs then signed the le tte rs a t gunpoi nt and w er e re le as ed - - af te r be ing de ta ine d f

or m or e than e igh t hours -- at 2:00 a.m . on 14 Oc tober 1999 . The le ader of the sec urity force5

allegedly threatened to kill Plaintiffs if they failed to leave Guatem ala or r elocated to Mex ic o. Pl ai nt iff

s n ow l iv e in th e Uni te d S ta te s. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs brought twelve claim s against Del Mon te and B an de guain the dis tr ic t c ourt. T ha t c ourt gr an te d D el Mo nte ’ s m oti on to d ism iss f

or f ai lur e to s ta te ac la im . P la int if fs have a ppe al ed the dis m iss al of the ir c la im s br ough t un de r the A lie n T ort A ct , 28 U . S. C. § 13 50 ( “ A T A ”) , and the Torture Vic tim

Protection Ac t, which is pu blish ed as a historical and statutory no te to th e ATA, cod ifi edat 2 8 U.S.C. § 13 50 (19 91 ) (“ TVPA”).

STA ND AR

D O F REVIE W

W e re vie wm oti ons to d ism iss de novo ; a ll fa ct s are take n f ro m the co m pla int . C he pst owL td. v. H unt , 381 F . 3d 1 077, 108 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) (c itatio ns o m itt ed ). A m

big uit ie s are c onstru ed

in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the nonm ovant, Plaintiffs. Miccosukee T ribe of Indians of Fla. v. S o. E verglades Re sto ratio n A lli an ce , 304 F . 3d 1 076, 108 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . W e can a ff irm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of the c om pla int onl y if “ it ap pe ar s be y ond doub t tha t the pla int if f can pr ove no s et

of f ac ts i n su ppor t of his c la im w hic h w oul d e nti tle him to r el ie f. ” Jon es v. A m . G en . L if e & A cc ide nt I ns. Co . , 370 F . 3d 1 065, 106 9 ( 11th6

Cir. 2004 ) (c iting Cry der v. Oxendine, 24 F. 3d 17 5, 176 (11th Cir. 1994) (internal quot at ion s om itt ed )) . B ut, “ co nc lus or y a lle ga tio ns, unw ar

rante d de duc tio ns o f facts or le gal conclusio ns m asquerading as facts w ill not p revent dism issal.” Oxf or d As se t M gmt., Ltd . v. J ah ari s, 2 97 F.3d11 82 , 11 88 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ).

DISC US SION

1. Th e No n- To rtu re A lie n T ort A ct Claim s. The A lien Tort A ct provides that “ [t] he district courts shall h ave original j ur isd ic tio n of

any c ivi l a ct ionby

an a lie n f

or ator t on ly , c om

m itt ed in vio la tio n of th e la w of n at io ns or a tre at y of t he Uni te d S ta te s.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 13 50 (20 05 ). To obt ai n r el ie f unde r the A T A , pla int if fs m ust be ( 1) an a lie n, ( 2) sui ng f or ator t, w hic h w as ( 3) c om

m itt ed in vio la tio n of

int er na tio na l l aw . Abe be -J ir a v. N eg ew o, 72 F.3d 844, 848 (11th Cir. 1996 ). T he first tw o elem ents are not dispu ted. D el Mo nt e d oe s ch al le ng e Pl ai nt iff s’ con te nt io n t ha t t he un de rlyin g a ct s s ho w a vio la tio n of

the law s of

na tio ns: pr ohi bit ion s a ga ins t ( 1) c ru el , inhum an , de gr ad ing tre at m en t o r pu ni sh m en t; (2) arb it rary det en ti on ; an d (3 ) cri m es ag ai ns t h um an it y . T he S upr em e Co urt r ec en tly int er pr et ed the A lie n T ort A ct

in So sav. A lvare z- Ma ch ai n, 124 S . Ct . 273 9 ( 2004 ). T he re , the Co urt e xpl ai ne d th at theCongr ess ena cted the A lien Tort Act in 1789. The Court determined that three of fense s were 3 actionable at that time: violation of safe c onducts, infring ement of the rig hts of ambassador s, and pirac y . Sosa, 124 S. Ct . at 2761. Our c on c lus ion

dif fe rs fr om d ic ta

c onta ine d in

Ar c e v. Ga

rc ia , 4 00 F .3 d 1 34 0, 13 45 n. 2 ( 11 th 4 Cir . 2 00 5) (i nte rp re tin gSos a a s li mit ingthe Al ie n T or t A c t to a g ra nt o f j ur isd ic tio n, no t a

c a us e of ac tion). 7 A T Ais j ur isd ic tio na l i n natur e but that i t a lso pr ovi de s ac au se of a ct ion“ fo r the m odest nu m

ber of international law violatio ns with a potential for personal lia bil ity a t the ti m e [o f its e na ctm en t] . ” 124 S . Ct . a t 27 61. A cc or din g to the 3 Co urt, c au se s of

a ct ionund er

the A T Aare not

static ; ne wone s m ay

be r ec ogni ze d, if the c la im is “ ba se d onthe pr es en t- day lawof na tio ns t o r es t onanor

m of int er na tio na l c hara ct er

a cc ep te d by

the c ivi liz ed

w or ld and d ef

ine d w itha spe ci fi ci ty

c om para ble to the f

eatur es of the 18th c en tur

y para dig m s w e have re co gni ze d. ” 124 S . Ct . a t 27 61- 62. B ut the Co urt sa id tha t f ed er al c ourts s houl d 4 ex er ci se “ gr eat c au tio n” w he n c onsi de ri ng n ewc au se s of a ct ion , and m ai nta in

“ vig ilant d oor

ke ep ing . . . thu s [ ope nin g th e door ] to a narr owc la ss o f in te rn at io na l n orm s [r eco gn iz ed ] to da y .” 12 4 S . Ct. at27 63 , 27 64 . Ba s edl ar g el y o n o u r r ea d i n g o f S o s a, we ag re e w i t h th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s dis m iss al of

P la int if fs ’ non -t ortur e cl ai m s un de r the A lie n T ort A ct . W e se e no ba sis in lawto re co gni ze P la int if fs ’ c la im f or c ru el , inhum an , de gr ad ing tr eatm en t or punis hm ent. I n reac hing this conclus ion, we acknowledge that two district co urts o f thi s C ir cu it re co gni ze d su chac au se of a ct ion . S ee Me hin ovi c v.8

Vuckovic, 198 F. Supp. 2d 1322 , 1347 (N. D. Ga . 2002) (Bosnian war crim es); Ca be llo v. F er

nande z- L ar ios , 157 F . S upp. 2d 1 345, 136 1 ( S. D . F la . 200 1) (p oli tic al a ssa ssi na tio n) a ff ’ d ondif fe re nt g ro unds by

402 F . 3d 1 148, 116 1 ( 11th Ci r. 200 5) . B ut b othof

tho se c ourts r el ie d onthe I nte rn at ion al Co ve nant o n C ivi l an d P oli tic al Ri ght s, Me hin ovi c, 198 F . Su pp. 2d at 13 47, Ca

be llo , 157 F . Su

pp. 2d at 136 1. S osa

e xpl ai ns tha t the I nte rn at ion al Co ve nant d id n ot “ cr eate o b l i g a t i o n s e n f

o r c e ab l e i n th e f

e d e r a l c o u rt s . ” 1 2 4 S . C t . a t2 7 6 7 . Ac c o r d i n g l y, w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n onthe c ru el , inhum an , de gr ad ing tr eatm en t or pun ish m en t c la im s. W e do the sam e fo r Pl ai nti ff s’ c la im f or arb itr ar y de te nti on. I n S osa , the Co urt de te rm ine d th at

“ a sin gle il le ga l de te nti on o f le ss than aday . . . vio la te s no norm of custom ary

international law so we ll defined as to sup port the creation of a federa l rem edy .” 124 S. C t. at 2769 . The dete ntion alleged here w as m ore frightening th an the one in Sosa; still , the short tim e of the detention here causes the legal principle annou nced by the Court in Sosa to guid e us. W e, therefor e, af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ion . W e al so a gr ee w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of the c ri m es a ga ins t hum anity claim . First, such crim es we re not expressly plead in the com

plaint. See E m or y v. P ee le r, 756 F . 2d 1 547, 155 0 n. 3 ( 11th C ir . 198 5) ( co nsi de ri ng o nly the9

“ nake d c om

pla int ” w he n r ev ie w ing am oti on t o di sm iss ). S ec ond, to the e xte nt that crim es against hum anity are rec ogni zed as violations of international law, they oc cu r as a res ul t o f “ wid es pr eador s y st em at ic att ack ” ag ai ns t ci vi li an po pu la ti on s. Se e Ca be llo v. F er

nande z- L ar ios , 402 F . 3d 1 148, 116 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . T hose kin ds o f w or ds are not

f ound in the c om

pla int , but

ins te ad in Pl ai nti ff

s’ appe llate brief. T he appellate brief cannot sup ply the necessary

fac ts to ov ercom e D el Mon te ’ s m oti on t o di sm iss . S ee E m or y , 756 F . 2d at 15 50 n . 3. A nd, P la int if fs ’ re lianc e -- f

ound e xc lus ive ly

in the appe llate br ie f -- on a lle ge d sy ste m at ic and w ide spr ea d e ff

orts a ga ins t or ganiz ed

la bor in G ua te m al a is t oo t enuous to es ta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se , e spe ci al ly in the li ght

of S osa ’ s de m an d f

or vig ilant do orke ep in g. 2. Claim s F

or T orture U nde r T he A lie n T

ort A ct A nd T orture V ic tim Pro te ct io n Act . a. S ta te A ct ion . State-sponsored torture, unlike torture by private actors, likely

violates int er na tio na l l awand i s th er ef or e ac tio nable und er

the A lie n T ort A ct . S ee K ad ic v. K ar ad zi c, 70 F . 3d 2 32, 243 -4 4 ( 2nd Ci r. 199 5) ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ). T he te xt o f th e Tor tu re Vi ct im

Pro te ct io n Act ex pr es sl y req ui res th e el em en t o f st at e act io n.10

Tort ur e Vic ti m

Pro te ct io n Act § 2 (a), 1 06 Sta t. 7 3 (1 99 2) (co di fie d a t 2 8 U.S.C. § 1350 ( H ist or ic al and S ta tut or y N ote s) ). I n c onstru ing thi s st at e ac tio n requirem ent, w e look “ to the principles o f agency lawand to jurisprudence under 42 U . S. C. § 19 83. ” K ad ic , a t 24 5. Ac la im f or state -s pons or ed

tor tur e unde r the Alien T ort Ac t or the T orture V ictim Protection Ac t m ay

be based on ind irect liabilityas w ell as direct liability . Cabello, 402 F. 3d at 115 7. T he Alien T ort Ac t

“ re ac he s c onsp ir ac ie s and a cc om pli ce li ab ili ty , ” an d th e T ortur e V ic tim P ro te ct ion A ct r ea ch es tho se w ho o rd er ed , abe tte d, or a ssi ste d inthe w ro ngf

ul a ct . I d. T he c om pla int a lle ge s th re e state a ct s or a ct s by state of fi ci al s. F ir st, Pl ai nti ff s arg ue that Gua te m al a sanc tio ns the a ct s of pr ivate se curi ty

f or ce s by pe rm itt ing the m

to ex ist le ga lly . ( Co m

pl. ¶ ¶ 66, 72) . S ec ond, P la int if fs a lle ge the pol ic e kne wof

and d el ibe rate ly

ign or ed the e ve nts a t the S IT RA BI he ad quart er s. (Co m pl . ¶ 55 ). Thi rd , Pla in ti ffs say bro ad ly tha t u nn am ed“pu bl ic off ic ia ls . . . int en tio na lly

f ai le d to take a ct ionin or de r to p er m it the vio le nc e to o cc ur [ an d] w er e part of the se curi ty

f or ce . ” ( Co m

pl. ¶ 29) . T he c om

pla int late r nam es the May or a s su chan of

fi ci al , ( Co m

pl. ¶ 47) , and i t de sc ri be s go ve rn m en t of fi ci al s of

“ the Bobos District” as “ assistin g” the security force . (Com

pl. ¶ 66). G ua te m al a’ s r eg istratio n and t ole ratio n of pr ivate se curi ty

f or ce s do es not tr an sf orm tho se f or ce s’ a ct s in to s ta te a ct s. S ee Mo ose L odge N o. 107 v. I rv is, 92Paragraph f ifty -five a lleg es that “A s [P laintiffs] walked outside [after r esig ning f rom the 5 union] , they

all wer e able to see the N ational Police offic e, which w as no more tha n 100 meters fr om t he SI TRA B Iof

fi c e . It w a s an a

bs olute c e rt a int

y that th e Natio na l Po lic e we re awa re of a ll of the e vents of the night, and y et they did nothing to interve ne to protec t the SI TRABI leade rs.” 11 S. Ct. 1965 , 1971-74 (1972 ) (c onclud ing state’ s alcohol licensin g and regulatory sc he m e d idno t t ran sf

orm a pr iv at e cl ub wit h ali qu orli cen se in to a st at e act or ). Ina ddi tio n, pol ic e ina ct ionin re spon se to ev en ts o cc ur ri ng n ot i n th ei r pla in sig ht, but a t l ea st o ne hun dr ed

m et er s and tw o w al ls aw ay , doe s no t e sta bli sh s ta te action. T his lack of state action is particularly definite wher e, as here, Plaintiffs 5 do no t allege sufficient fa cts to war rant the infere nce that the National Police knew of and p ur pose fu lly tur ne d abli nd e y e to the e ve nts . “ [S ] om e m ini m al ple ad ing standard doe s e xis t. . . . ‘ Pl ea din gs m ust be som ethin g m or e than an in ge nio us a c a d e mi c e x e r c i s e i n th e c o n c e i v ab l e . ’” Wa g n e r v . D a e w o o H e a v y I n du s . A m. Corp., 289 F.3d 1268 , 1270 (11th Cir. 2002) (discussin g generally what m ight b e a reasonable infere nce in the pleading con text) (internal citation om itted) rev’ d en banc on oth er grounds, 314 F.3d 451 (11th Cir. 2002 ). Plaintiffs allege the police station was spacially near the S IT RAB I he ad quart er s, w hic h le ad s P la int if fs to de duc e that the pr oxi m ity m ad e it ce rt ai n the pol ic e kne wof

the e ve nts in que sti on. W e m ust m ak e re as ona

ble inf er en ce s in Pl ai nti ff s’ f av or , but w e ar e not

r equir ed to dr awP la int if

fs ’ inf er en ce . “ Ba ld12

as se rt ion s” w ill not

ove rc om e a Ru le 12( b) (6 ) m oti on. D M R es earc h, I nc . v. Co lle ge of

A m . P athol ogi sts , 170 F . 3d 5 3, 55, 56 ( 1st Ci r. 199 9) ( ci ta tio n om itt ed ) ( a f f i rmi n g d i s mi s s a l f

o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e ac l a i m w h e n c o mp l a i n tf a i l e dt o a l l e g e “a factual pre dicate concrete enough to war rant further proceedings” and provi ded m er e “ spe cu la tio ns” ). L ike w ise , “ unw ar rante d de duc tio ns o f fa ct ” ar e not adm itt ed a s tr ue in a m oti on t o di sm iss . S o. F la . W at er D ist . Mg m

t. D ist . v. Mon ta lvo , 84 F . 3d 4 02, 408 n. 10 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) ( statin g indic ta ). T he com plaint here provides no fac tual basis to infer the police m ade a knowing choice to i gnor e Pl ai nti ff

s’ a lle ge d pl igh t. I t i s un re as ona ble to inf er , ba se d onthe f

ac ts al le ge d he re ( al le ge d to rt ur e oc curr ing ind oor s and an a lle ge dly c oe rc ed ind oor ra dio a ddr es s so m ep la ce e lse ), that j ust spa ci al pr oxi m ity

pr ovi de s ar ea sona

ble ba sis f or kno w le dge or

int en t onthe part

of the pol ic e. S ee ge ne ra lly W ag ne r, 289 F.3 d a t 1 27 2. We c an n o ts ay, h o we v er , t h at a r ea s o n ab l e r ea d i n g o f t h e c o m p l ai n t ’s de sc ri pti on o f the May or ’ s a ct s r ule s ou t st at e ac tio n. P ar ag ra ph tw en ty -n ine is the fi rs t t im e gove rn m en t of

fi ci al s are m en tio ne d: “publ ic of fi ci al s a t the ur gin g of D ef en dants and/ or

the ir a ge nts int en tio na lly

f ai le d to take a ct ionin or de r to p er m it the vio le nc e to o cc ur . F urthe r, vari ous publ ic of fi ci al s w er e part

of the se curi ty fo rc e. ” A t l ea st o ne pub lic of fi ci al , the May or , is ide nti fi ed by nam e in p ar ag ra

ph13

fo rty -s ev en : “ Is ra el V ar ga s, w ho w as the May or of Mo ra le s D istri ct

. . . and se ve ra l othe r ar

m ed a ggr es sor s” too k tw o P la int if fs a t gunpoi nt and a ga ins t the ir w ill to a ra dio statio n. T he c om pla int a lso a lle ge s late r, in para gr ap h se ve nty -tw o, th at“ go ve rn m en t o ffi ci al s” actua ll y “ as si st ed ” th e se cu rit y

for ce. In the context of the whole com plaint, the district court appears to have rea d these passages to describe the May or as m erely present and not an active m em ber of the se curi ty

f or ce . A ldanav. F re sh D el Mo nte P ro duc e, I nc . , 305 F . S upp. 2d 1285 , 130 2 ( S. D . F la . 200 3) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ea din g m igh t be one r ea sona ble re ad ing of

the c om pla int . W e cannot

say , how ev er , that i t i s th e onl y r ea sona ble r e a d i n g o f

th e c o mp l a i n t . Es p e c i a l l y wh e n r e a dt o g e t h e r wi t h p a r a g r ap h s tw e n t ynin e an d se ve nty -tw o, para gr ap h f orty -s ev enc anr ea sona

bly be r ea d a s de pic tin g the May or

a s an “ ar m ed a ggr es sor , ” not

am er e obse rv er . S ee Ma glu tav. S am ple s, 375 F.3d 126 9, 1274-75 (11t h Cir. 2004 ) (r eading com plaint in its entirety

when review ing a m otion to dism iss for failure to state a claim). See also 5 Charles A lan Wri ght & A rthur R. Mi lle r, F ed er al P ra ct ic e an d P ro ce dur e § 12 86 ( 3d e d. 200 4) (a r ev ie w ing c ourt gi ve s e ff ec t t o a ll av er

m en ts) . A t i ts m ost

spe ci fi c poi nt, the co m pl ai nt st at es th atth e Ma y or“ an d s ev eral ot he r arm edag gr es so rs ” to oktwo Pl ai nti ff s a t gunpoi nt and a ga ins t P la int if fs ’ w ill s to ar ad io s ta tio n. “ A t w or st, thi s langua ge is am

big uous . . . and b ec au se the c ourt w as r uli ng o n am oti on t oWe s tr e s s th at t h is li ti g ati o nis at a

p r e li mi n ar

y s ta g e th at i s v e r

y f r ie n d ly to Pl a inti f

f s . We 6 c ann ot p re dic t what e vid e nc e c an b e mus te re d at summa ry jud g me nt ( or

be yon d) that c ou ld support or re fute this alleg ation from the c omplaint. W e ca nnot be ce rtain the time that the Mayor ar rived on the sc ene. B eca

use we must construe the c omplaint in P laintiffs’ fa vor, we acc ept today

that he wa s prese nt for the a lleg ed ac ts of torture de scribed be low. 14 dis m iss , the c om

pla int sho uld be c onstru ed

in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le ” to Pl ai nti ff s. Mi cc osuk ee T ri be of

I ndi an s of

F la . v. S o. E ve rg la de s R es tor at ion All ia nc e, 30 4 F .3d10 76 , 10 84 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Fo r Pl ai nti ff

s, the f av or ab le c onstru ct ionof

the c om pla int is that the May or w as one of

the arm ed

a ggr es sor s. T he May or ’ s a ct ive inv olv em en t i n th e pr oc es s co uld have pr ovi de d asuf

fi ci en tly a ff irm at ive a ct

to es ta bli sh s ta te a ct ion . 6 Ca be llo v. F er

nande z- L ar ios , 402 F . 3d 1 148, 115 6 n. 2 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . T he May or’ s “ m ere presence” m ay not establis h state action, but his alleged part ic ipatio n inthe f

or ci ble e ve nts c oul d. S ee Co fi el d v. Randol ph C ounty Co m m ’ n, 90 F . 3d 4 68, 471 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) . B ec au se w e be lie ve the a lle ge d a ct s ar e suf fi ci en t f or nowto es ta

bli sh s ta te a ct ionon the part of the May or , w e do n ot ad dr es s P la int if

fs ’ oth er c ont en tio n th at

the May or ’ s in ac tio n f

ac ili ta te d and cau se d t he ir h arm .

b. T ortur e Cl ai m s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso de ci de d th at P la int if fs ’ c la im s di d no t c onst itu te to rtu re u nd er ei th er t he Ali en TortAct o r th e Tor tu re Vi ct im Pro te ct io n Act .The Supreme Court defines the la w of nations as beingdeter mined, “[w]here there is no 7 treaty , and no contr olling executive or leg islative act or judicia l decision, [by ] t he customs and usag es of c iviliz ed nations; and, a s evidenc e of the se, to the works of jurists and commentators who by y ear s of labor, r esea

rch a nd experience , have ma de themselve s peculiarly well ac quainted with the subjects of whic h they treat. Such works ar e re sorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of their authors c oncer ning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidenc e of what the law

rea lly is.” Sosa, 124 S. Ct . at 2766-67 (c iting The Paquete Ha bana, 20 S. Ct. 290, 299 (1900)) . 8 (1) the te rm “torture ” mea ns any act, dire cted a g ainst an individual in t he of fe nd e r' s c us tod

y or phy sic a l c ontr ol, by

wh ic h s e ve re pa in or suffe ring(other tha

n pain or suff

eringarisingonly

from or inhere nt in, or incidental to, lawful sa nctions), whethe r phy sical or mental, is intentionally

inflicted on that individual for such purposes a s obtaining f

rom that individual or a third per son information or a

confe ssion, punishi ngthat individual for an a ct that individual or a third per son has committed or is suspected of havingcommitted, intim idating or coer cingthat individual or a third person, or f

or any rea son based on discr imination of any kind; and 15 Ald an a v . Fres h Del Mo nt e Pro du ce, In c., 30 5 F . Sup p.2 d 1 28 5, 1 29 4- 95 (S.D. Fl a. 200 3) . Apr el im inary que sti on w e m

ust de ci de is w he the r re co ve ry is pe rm itt ed und er the T V PAand the A T A , and i f so, w he the r “ tortur e” m eans the sam e thing for both statutes. W e conclude that a plaintiff m ay bring dis tinct claim s for torture under ea ch statute. T he statut or

y te xts sup port this c onc lus ion . T ortur e is a ct ion ab le und er the A lie n T ort A ct , but

onl y if the c ondu ct

is “ co m m itt ed in vio la tio n of

the law s of na tio ns. ” 28 U . S. C. § 13 50 ( 2005 ). B y c ontra st, Co ngr es s pr ovi de d an e xpr es s 7 de fi nit ionof

tor tur e in the T ortur e V ic tim P ro te ct ionA ct . T he se tw o 8(2) menta l pain or suffe ringref ers to prolong ed mental ha rm cause d by or re sulting fr om-- (A) the intentional infliction or threate ned infliction of s ev er e p h y s i ca l p ai no r s u ff er i n g; (B ) the a dminist ration or a pplication, or threatened administration or application, of mind alteringsubstances or other pr ocedur es ca lculated to disrupt profoundly the s e n s e s o r th e p e r s o n a l i ty; (C) the thre at of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another individual will immi nently be subjected to de ath, seve re phy sical pain or suf fer ing, or the administration or application of mind alteringsubstances or other proc edure s calc ulated to disrupt profoundly the senses o r p e r s o n a l i ty. Torture Victim Protection Act § 3(b) , 106 Stat. 73 (1992) (c odified at 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (Historica l and Statutory

Notes)) . 16 definition s sugg est each statute provides a m eans to recover f or torture as that ter

m se pa rat el y

dra ws i ts m ean in g fr om

each st atut e. Pr ec ed en t a lso sup ports this c onc lus ion . I n Abe be -J ir a v. N eg ew o, 72 F . 3d 844, 847 -4 8 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) , w e co nstru ed the A lie n T ort A ct

a s c onf er ri ng b otha fo rum and a pr ivate r igh t of

a ct ion . N oth ing in So sac hange s th is c onc lus ion ; i n fa ct , it c onf irm s it . 124 S . Ct . a t 27 61- 62. Whe n de sc ri bin g th e T V PA , the Su pr em e Co urt sa id i t w as an e xam ple of Co ngr es s pr ovi din g a“ cl ear m an da te ” to al lowr ec ove ry

f or c la im s “ co nf

ine d to [ a] spe ci fi c subj ec t m atte r[ :] ” tortur e an d ex tr aj udi ci al kil lin g. I d. a t 27 63. B ut the Co urt di d no t say that the auth or ity17

gr an te d inthe T ortur e V ic tim P ro te ct ionA ct

pr ovi de d th e ex cl usi ve auth or ity to h ea r t o rt u re cl ai m s . C o n t ra En ah o ro v . Ab ub ak ar , No . 0 3 -3 0 8 9 , 2 0 0 5 WL 12 43 17 8 a t * 6- 7 (7 th Cir . May 23 , 20 05 ). W e al so rel y

on pri nc ip le s o f st atut ory co ns tru ct io n t o re ach ou r co nc lu si on . T o a cc ep t tha t the T ortur e V ic tim P ro te ct ionA ct

pr ovi de s th e ex cl usi ve r em edy fo r ac ts o f tortur e is t o a cc ep t tha t i t am en ds the A lie n T ort A ct . S uc h an in te nt t o am en d is not

appare nt f

ro m the f ac e of the statut e, and “ am en dm en ts b y im pli catio n are dis favor ed . O nly w he n C ongr es s’ int en t t o r ep ea l or a m en d is clear and m anifest will w e conclude that a later act im plicitlyrepea ls or am ends an earlier one.” Patel v. Quality

Inn So., 846 F.2d 700, 704 (11t h Cir. 1988 ). T hat the TV PA , which was publish ed in the Statues at L arge, appears in the U nited St at es Co de a s ahis tor ic al and s ta tut or y not e to the A lie n T ort A ct doe s no t m ak e the T V PAany

le ss the lawof

the land. S ee ge ne ra lly

S ch w ie r v. Co x, 340 F . 3d 12 84 , 12 88 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Having decided that Plaintiffs can r aise separate claim s for state-sponsored tortur e unde r the A lie n T ort A ct and a lso und er

the T ortur e V ic tim

P ro te ct ionA ct , we m ust decide whether the a cts alleged in the com plaint can be consid ered torture under (a) the law of nations (for AT A purposes); and (b) the T VP A’ s statuto ry definition . W e conclude that Plaintiffs alleged sufficient fa cts to establish torture18

cau si ng sev ere m en ta l s uf feri ng un de r bo th st atut es . Whe n c ourts s ee k to de fi ne tor tur e in i nte rn at ion al law , the y of te n lo ok t o the Co nve nti on A ga ins t T ortur e an d O the r Cr ue l, I nhum anor

D eg ra din g Tr eatm ent or Punishm ent, G .A . R es. 39/46, U .N . G AO R, Supp. N o. 51, U .N . D oc. A /39 /51 ( 1984 ), r ep ri nte d in23 I . L . M. 102 7. S ee , e . g. , I n r e E state of F er din an d Marcos H um an Rights Litig. v. Estate of Marc os, 25 F. 3d 14 67, 1475 (9th Cir. 1994 ); K ad ic , 70 F . 3d at 24 3- 44. F ed er al im m igr at ionlawr el ie s onthe Co nve nti on whe n de ci din g w he the r al ie ns m ay be de porte d to na tio ns tha t w oul d tortur e the m . U nit ed

S ta te s P oli cy

W ithRe spe ct

to the I nvol unt ar

y Re tur n of Pe rs ons in D an ge r of

S ubj ec tio n to T ortur e § ( f) , 112 S ta t. 268 1- 822 (1 998) (c odi fi ed a t 8 U . S. C. § 12 31 ( H ist or ic al and S ta tut or y N ote )) . S ee a lso Ca de t v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 117 3, 1194 (11th Cir. 2004 ) (descr ibing the Conventio n as pr ov id in g “ th e o nl y

rel ev an t d efi ni ti on of ‘to rtu re’” in th e imm ig rat io n c on te xt ). A cc or din gly , w e, f

or A T Apur pose s, too loo k to the Co nve nti on whe n de ci din g what constitutes torture according to the laws of nations. T he Conventio n defines tortur e as any a ct by w hic h se ve re pa in or su ffering , w he the r phy sic al or m ental, is intentionallyinflicted on a person for such purpos es as obt ai nin g f

ro m him or athi rd pe rs on i nf

orm at ionor a co nf

es sio n, puni shi ng h im

f or an ac t he or

athi rd pe rs on h as c om

m itt ed or is sus pe ct ed of havin g co m

m itt ed , or int im idatin g or

c oe rc ing him

orThe c omplaint alleg es that member s of the sec urity forc e -- - who we re a

rmed, a nd thus had 9 rea dy the means to kill -- told Plaintiffs Evans and Romero that they would be killed bec ause of their “a ctivities on behalf of SI TRABI .” (Compl. ¶ 34). In para g raph f orty -five, the complaint attributes a membe r of the se curity forc e tellingRomero that he would be burned a live. Para g ra phthi rt y -s e ve n d e sc ri be s Pla int if f M . M a rt ine z’s a bd uc tio n: m e mbe rs of

the se c ur ity forc e told him “that they

wer e g oing to kill him.” Paragraph f orty -three alleg es a me mber of the 19 a thi rd pe rs on, or fo r any re as on ba se d on dis cr im inatio n of any kin d, w he n su chpa in o r suf fe rin g is inf

lic te d by or a t the ins tig at ion of or w iththe c onse nt o r ac qui es ce nc e of apub lic of fi ci al or oth er pe rs on ac tin g in an of

fi ci al ca pa ci ty . I t do es not inc lud e pa in o r suf

fe ri ng arising on ly

f ro m , inh er en t i n or inc ide nta l t o law fu l sanc tio ns. Part I , A rt ic le I , G . A . Re s. 39/ 46, U . N . G A O R, S upp. N o. 51, U . N . D oc . A /39 /51 (1 984) , r ep ri nte d in23 I . L . M. 102 7. T he T ortur e V ic tim P ro te ct ionA ct

pr ovi de s a differe nt definitio n. I n som e case , the diff erent definitions m ight actually m ake a dif fe re nc e; w e re ca ll that ne ith er Co ngr es s no r the S upr em e Co urt ha s ur ge d us to read the T VP A a s narrow ly as w e have been direc ted to read the A lien Tort A ct ge ne ral ly. See So sa , 12 4 S . Ct. at27 61 -6 2. Pl ai nti ff s a lle ge the y

w er e (a ) in the c ust ody

or phy sic al c ontro l of

the se curi ty f or ce ; ( b) suf

fe re d se ve re , pr olo nge d m en ta l and p hy sic al pa in o r suf fe ri ng; by be ing ( c) thr eate ne d w ithim m ine nt d eath; f

or the pur pose s of ( d) puni shing Plaintiffs for their labor activities. T he com plaint alleges that Plaintiffs H er nande z, G . Mart ine z, M. Mart ine z, and R om er o a ll w er e tol d th ey w oul d be killed th at night. Plaintiff A ldana and M. Martinez w ere film ed with a video 9secur ity

forc e thre atene d Plaintiff G. Martinez by stating: “ You won’t mess with B andegua af ter we c ut your b a lls of

f a nd ha ngyou !” Th e thr e at a g a ins t Pla int if f H e rn and e z is c onta ine d in para g raph f

orty : a member

of the sec urity

forc e “ste pped for

war d and put a gun to Plainti ff Her nandez’s hea d, threatening‘I ’ll make you smile.’” Paragraph thirty -nine a ddresse s Rodrigue z’s entry to the SI TRABI

headqua rters: “ He wa s 10 order ed at gunpoint by

a lea der of

the sec urity

forc e . . . to g et out of his car and g o into the SI TRABI office .” The plac ement of the para g raph in a nother c ount is unimportant to our re view of a district 11 court’s or der dismissing a complaint under Rule 12( b) of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure. We rea d the complaint as a whole. Mag luta v. Samples, 375 F.3d 1269, 1274-75 ( 11th Cir. 2004). In addition, a formulaic misstep by counsel is not fata l under the notice pleadingstandard 20 cam er a an d to ld the y

“ w oul d be giv ing the ir

la st m es sa ge s. ” ( Co m

pl. ¶ 48) . T he co m pla int doe s no t m en tio n sp ec if

ic thr eats a ga ins t P la int if f Ro dr igu ez , nor

doe s it say that Plaintiff E vans was told he would be killed th at night. But, another 10 para gr ap h di sc uss es ac oll ec tiv e thr eat: takin g pi ct ur es of the se ve n P la int if

fs ,

“ stating th at [a m em

ber of the secur ity

force ] wanted a clear

photo of the fac es be fo re he kil le d th em

a ll. ” ( Co m

pl. ¶ 45) . T he se a lle ga tio ns d es cr ibe im m ine nt death threats: (1) the secur ity force wa s heavily

arm ed; (2) Pla intiffs wer e unarm ed and restrained; and (3) f

or m any hours the security

force m ade specific thre ats that Plaintiffs (f

or their past acts) w ouldbe killed not som etim e in the future, but that ve ry nig ht. Ina ddi tio n, P la int if

fs a lle ge in a para gr ap h a ddr es sin g ane gli ge nt i nf lic tio n of em ot io na l d is tre ss cla im , th atth ey “ ha ve su ffer edan d wi ll co nt in ue to su ffer. . . ex tr em e an d se ve re m en ta l angui sh and e m oti ona l di str es s. ” ( Co m pl. ¶ 105 ). A ll

11( w h e r e f

a i r n o t i c e i s a l l th ati s r e qu i r e d ) o f F e d e r a l R

u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d

ur e 8 ( a ) . S e e g e n e r a l l y, Swierkiewic z v. S orema , N.A., 122 S. Ct. 992, 998, 999 (2002) (interpr etingRule 8(a) as fo c us ingthe “ lit ig atio n o n th e me ri ts o f a c la im” ). Se e a lso 5 Ch arl e s A lan Wr ig ht & Ar thu r R . Miller, Fe dera l Practice and Proce dure § 1286 ( 3d ed. 2004) ( descr ibing a pleadingas judg ed “by the quality

of its substance r ather

than ac cordingto its form or label and, if possible, it will be c on str ue d to g ive e ff

e c t to a ll i ts a

ve rm e nts ” ). De l Mo nte c ann ot s ay that it did no t r e c e ive fa ir no tic e of the tor tur e c la im j us t be c a

us e the langua g e a

bo ut l a sti ngme nta l tr a

uma wa s p la c e d in another section of the c omplaint. 21 thing s consid ered, the acts alleged in the com plaint coul d constit ute torture

- - ba se d onint en tio na lly inf lic te d e m oti ona lly

pa in and s uf

fe ri ng - - unde r the A lie n T ort A ct

and T ortur e V ic tim

P ro te ct ionA ct . Pl ai nti ff s’ a lle ga tio ns o f int en tio na lly inf lic te d ph y sic al pa in and s uf fe ri ng do n ot m ee t the statut or

y e le m en ts o f tortur e unde r ei the r the A lie n T ort A ct or Torture Vic tim

Protection Ac t, howe ver. Much of the pleading abou t phy sical -- as opp ose d to m en ta l - - tortur e is c onc lus or y . F or e xam ple , the c om

pla int c ont ai ns paragraphs describing som e Plaintiffs a s being “ tortured with phy sical violence.” (Co m pl . ¶ 34 ). Thes e k in ds of a ll eg at io ns can no t o ve rco m e a m ot io n t o d is m is s. Se e ge ne ra lly

O xf or d A sse t M gm

t. , L td. v. Jahari s, 297 F . 3d 1 182, 118 8 ( 11th Cir. 2002 ) (“ concluso ry

allegations, unwarr anted deduction s of fac ts or legal co nc lus ion s m as que ra din g a s f ac ts w ill not

pr ev en t di sm iss al ”) . F urthe rm or e, the onl y spe ci fi ed a ct s of phy sic al vio le nc e w e can di sc er n f ro m the c om pla int inv olv es pus hin g, sho vin g and h av ing one ’ s ha ir pul le d. T he se a ct s do not co ns ti tu te sev ere p ai n o r su ffer in g.22 CON CLU SION

W e co m m en d th e dis tr ic t c ourt f

or r em em be ri ng tha t so m e m ini m al ple ad ing standard doe s st ill e xis t and f

or that c ourt’ s se ri ous an d th or oughe xam inatio n of the c om pla int . W e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r dis m iss ing P la int if fs ’ co m pla int e nti re ly , e xc ep t w e va cate the dis m iss al of P la int if fs ’ c la im s - - unde r the Alien T ort Ac t and the Torture Victim Protection Ac t -- f

or alleged torture based on in te nt io na ll y

in fli ct edm en ta l p ai n a ndsu ffer in g. AFFIRMED I N PART, VAC ATED I N PART, REMANDED.