FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 15, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1560 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00289 -CV -3-RV -E MT MICH AE L W . MC W IL LI AMS , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us ESCAMB IA CHARTER SCHOOL, ESCAMB IA SCHOOL DISTRICT, etal., D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( A ugus t 15 , 200 5) Be fo re CA RN E S, BA RKE T T and M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: M i ch ae l W. Mc Wil l i ams, p ro ce ed i n g p ro s e, ap p ea l s th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s sua spon te dism issal of his 42 U. S. C. § 198 3 com plaint for lack of subjec t-m atter2

j urisdictio n. Mc W illiam s initiated th e present ac tion agains t Escam bia Charter Sc hool ( “ E CS ”) , his f

orm er e m plo y er ; E sc am

bia Co unty S ch ool D istri ct

( “ Sc hool District”) , identified as E CS’ s spon sor; Am Staff Hum an Resources, Inc. (“ A m St af f” ), ide nti fi ed

a s c o- adm ini str at or

of E CS and M cW ill iam s’ s c oemp l o yer; Li b er t y M u tu al In s u ra n ce Co m p an y (“Li b er ty M u tu al ”) , EC S’s in su ran ce ca rri er; an d C ha rle s J . Cri st , Jr. (“ Cri st ”), Fl or id a Att orne y Gene ral . As a re sul t of a ct ion s take n by

the de fe ndants a lle ge dly r es ult ing in the dis co nti nua tio n of

his w orke r’ s c om

pe nsa tio n be ne fi ts, the de nia l of his unem ploym ent claim , and the dis m issal of a law suit he filed in Florida state court , he a sse rt ed

tw o ge ne ra l c la im s a ga ins t E CS , the S ch ool D istri ct , A m St af f, and L ibe rty Mu tua l: (1 ) vio la tio n of

his F ir st A m en dm en t and F ourte en th A m en dm en t due pr oc es s r igh ts b as ed

on the de fe ndants ’ part ic ipatio n inac onsp ir ac y a ga ins t him ( “ co nspi ra cy -b as ed

c la im s” ); and ( 2) vio la tio n of his D ue P ro ce ss r igh ts a s a res ul t o f th e d efen da nt s’ in di vi du al ne gl ig en ce (“ ne gl ig en ce-b as edcla im s” ). A ddi tio na lly , Mc W ill iam s ha s r ai se d c onsp ir ac y -b as ed c la im s a ga ins t C ri st. L ibe ra lly c onstru ing Mc W ill iam s’ s br ie f on a ppe al , he arg ue s th at

the district court’ s conclusio n that it lacked sub j ect-m atter j urisdictio n was not based on the facts in his com

plaint, and that the court rendered its decision before di rect in g h im

to fil e a m em or an du m

of l aw orev id en ce t o s up po rt h is cla im s. He3

co nte nds that the c ourt f

ai le d to m ak e a pr ope r fa ct ua l i nqui ry

in dis m iss ing his co m pla int , ins te ad

f ind ing that E CS , A m St af f, and L ibe rty

Mu tua l w er e pr ivate parties. He asserts that because a grant from the State of Florida paid their salaries or “ co ntr ac ts t o op er at e, ” E CS , A m sta ff , and L ibe rty

Mu tua l w er e ac tin g un de r the color of state law . He argues that E CS asser ted a defe nse of governm ental im m unityduring th e state civil proceedings, and Florida statutes provide that ECS is a pu bl ic sch oo l. H e ma i n t a i n s th a th e i s n o t a t t e mp t i n g t o r e - l i t i g a t e th e c l a i ms presented in his st ate ac tion, but is rely ing on those facts to supp ort his claim that th e ap pe ll ees vi ol at edhi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s j ur isd ic tio na l de ci sio n de nov o. B ar ne tt v. Ba ile y , 956 F . 2d 1 036, 103 9 ( 11th C ir . 199 2) . “ Fe de ra l su bj ec t m atte r j ur isd ic tio n exists if a com

plaint states a claim

arising und er the C onsti tutio n, law s or treaties of the United State s even thou gh, on the m erits, the plaintiff has no federal r ight.” Bell v. H ealth-Mor, Inc. , 549 F. 2d 34 2, 344 (5th Cir. 1977). Adistrict court can sua spon te raise a

j urisdictio nal defect at any tim e. Bar

nett, 956 F.3d at 1039. “ In determ ining whether

the district court had sub j ect m atter j urisdictio n, w e re spect the im portant d ist inc tio n be tw ee n th e la ck of sub j ec t m atte r j ur isd ic tio n and the fa ilure to state ac la im

upo n w hic h r el ie f can be gr an te d. ” Bl ue Cr oss & Bl ue Sh ie ldof Al a. v. Sa nd ers , 13 8 F .3d13 47 , 13 51 -1 35 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) .4

“ [A ] c la im

a lle ge d to ari se und er

f ed er al lawsho uld

not be dis m iss ed

f or lack of subjec t m atter j urisdictio n if ‘ the right of the petitio ners to recover under their com plaint will be sustain ed if the Constituti on and laws of the U nited States are given on e construction and will be defeated if they are given anoth er. ’ ” Id. at 1352 ( quot ing Be ll v. H ood, 327 U . S. 678 , 685 , 66 S . Ct . 773 , 777 , 90 L . E d. 939 (1 946) ). “ [A ] f

ed er al c ourt m ay

dis m iss af

ed er al que sti on c la im

f or la ck of subj ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n on ly if : ( 1) the a lle ge d c la im

und er the Co nst itu tio n or fe de ra l st at

ute s c le ar ly

appe ar s to be im

m at er ia l and m ad e sol el y f or the pur pose of obtaini ng jurisdiction; o r (2) such a claim is wholly insub stantial and frivolo us.” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d) .

“ Inde te rm ini ng the sub stanti al ity of af ed er al c la im

. . . , [ w e] m

ust de te rm ine w he the r the c au se of a ct iona lle ge d is so p at en tly w ith out m er it as to j ust if y the c ourt’ s di sm iss al f

or w an t of j ur isd ic tio n. ” Barn ett, 956 F . 2d at 10 41 (internal quotation s and ellipses om itted). “ A f ederal c laim

will be deem ed without any

legal m erit if the c laim

has no plaus ible foundatio n, or [ if] the court co nc lud es that a

pr ior S upr em e Co urt de ci sio n c le ar ly f or ec los es the c la im . ” I d. (internal quotation s om itted) (brac kets in origi nal). The re ar e th ree d iff

eren t q ue st io ns pe rta in in g t o t he de fen da nt s i n t hi s s ui t. W e ad dr es s e ac h intur

n.5

A . C ha rl es C ri st T he c la im

a ga ins t de fe ndant C harl es Cr ist w as dis m iss ed

on the gr ound s that i t w as barr ed

by E le ve nthA m en dm en t i m m uni ty . “ [T ] he e le ve ntha m en dm en t part ak es of

the na tur e of

aj ur isd ic tio na l bar. ” Z at le r v. W ai nw ri ght , 802 F . 2d 3 97, 399 (1 1thCi r. 198 6) ( int er na l qu otatio ns o m itt ed ). T he S upr em e Co urt ha s he ld that, abse nt a

le git im at e w ai ve r by

the S ta te or

abr oga tio n by

Co ngr es s, the E le ve nthA m en dm en t i s an a bsol ute bar to s uit

by an in div idu al a ga ins t a

state in a fe de ra l c ourt. E de lm anv. Jor dan, 415 U . S. 651 , 662 -6 3, 94 S . Ct . 134 7, 135 5- 56, 39 L . E d. 2d 6 62 ( 1974 ). Asui t a ga ins t a state of fi ci al in his of

fi ci al c ap ac ity co nst itu te s asui t a ga ins t the S ta te it se lf . W ill v. Mi ch . D ep ’ t of

S ta te P oli ce , 491 U . S. 58, 71, 109 S . Ct . 230 4, 231 2, 105 L . E d. 2d 4 5 ( 1989 ). A nd, ac ourt m ay r ai se anE le ve nthA m en dm en t i ssu e on i ts o w n m oti on. Mc Cl en don v. G a. D ep ’ t of Cm ty . H ea lth , 261 F . 3d 1 252, 125 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) ( ci tin g Whit ing v. Ja ck son State U niversity , 616 F. 2d 11 6, 126 n. 8 (5th Cir. 1980 )). T hus, the district court did not e rr dis m iss ing the c la im

a ga ins t C harl es Cr ist . B. E C S, A m St af

f, Li be rt y M ut ua l T he re are tw o c la im s a ga ins t the se part ie s, ac la im of c onsp ir ac y

and a c la im of negligence. Be ca

use D an ie ls v . W ill iam s, 474 U . S. 327 , 328 , 106 S . Ct . 662 , 663, 88 L. Ed. 2d 66 2 (1986), clear ly forec loses McW illiam s’ s negligence-based6

claim s in this § 1983 action, the cla im s are whollyinsub stantial and frivolo us. Se e Sanders, 138 F.3d at 1352. As a result, the district court did not err in finding th at it la ck ed sub j ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n ov er tho se c la im s. How ever, the district court erre d in findin g that it lacked sub j ect-m atter j urisdictio n over McW illiam s’ s conspi racy -based claim s against ECS, Am Staff , an d L ibe rty

Mu tua l. The basis of the district court’ s ruling was that these we re pr ivate part ie s, and the re fo re w er e not sub j ec t t o c la im s un de r § 19 83 . How ever, pr ivate de fe ndants c anbe he ld l ia ble in a § 19 83 a ct ionif

the y a ct in co nc er t w ith the state of

fi ci al s de pr ivi ng a

pla int if f of c onst itutio na l r igh ts. D en nis v. S park s, 449 U.S . 24, 27-28, 101 S.Ct. 183, 186, 66 L. Ed. 2d 18 5 (1980). “ [N ] othin g m ore than an ‘ unde rs tandi ng’ and ‘ w ill fu l part ic ipatio n’ be tw ee n pr ivate and s ta te de fe ndants is ne ce ssary

to showthe kin d of

j oin t a ct ionthat w ill sub

j ec t pr ivate parties to § 198 3 liability .” Bendiburg v. D em psey , 909 F. 2d 46 3, 469 (11th Cir. 19 90 ). The c laim s here have a

plausibl e foundation in the com plaint, as E CS, A m St af f, and L ibe rty

Mu tua l m ay

sti ll be he ld l ia

ble und er § 19 83 a s pr ivate pa rti es . Add it io na ll y , no pri orSupr em e Co ur t ca se cle arl y for ecl os es hi s cl ai m . As a result, his claim s are not “ so patentlywithout m erit” a s to deprive the dis trict7

co urt of sub j ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n. T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in dis m iss ing t h i s c l a i m. C. Sch ool District Si m ilarl y , the re is both ane gli ge nc e an d ac onsp ir ac y c la im a ga ins t the School District, which is a public party . Daniels, 474 U. S. at 328, 106 S.C t. at 663, likewise bars the negligence claim against the School District, and the dis trict co urt di d no t e rr

in dis m iss ing that c la im . T he c ourt, how ev er , did not a ddr es s McW illiam s’ s rem aining con spiracy -based claim s that the School District violated his F ir st A m en dm en t and F ourte en th A m en dm en t du e pr oc es s r igh ts. B ec au se Mc W ill iam s is a lle gin g ade pr ivatio n of his c onst itu tio na l r igh ts b y the S ch ool D istri ct , w hic h a ct s un de r the c olo r of state law , his c la im s have apla usi ble foundatio n. H is claim s also are not clear ly forec losed bya prior S uprem e Court de ci sio n and, the re fo re , are not “ so p at en tly

w ith out m er it” so a s to de pr ive the dis tr ic t c ourt of

j ur isd ic tio n. S ee Barn ett, 956 F . 2d at 10 41. A s ar es ult , the district court erre d in findin g that it lacked sub j ect-m atter j urisdictio n over McWil li am s’s co ns pi racy-bas edcla im s ag ai ns t t he Sch oo l Di st ric t. Fo r the above state d r ea sons , w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ind ing that the claim against Crist wa s barred by the Ele venth Am endm ent, and that it lacked subj ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n ov er Mc W ill iam s’ s ne gli ge nc e- ba se d c la im s a ga ins t8

E CS , A m St af

f, L ibe rty Mu tua l and the S ch ool D istri ct . W e, how ev er , va cate and r e man dth e d i s t r i c tc o u rt ’s o r d e r d i s mi s s i n g Wi l l i a ms ’s c o n s p i r a c y- b a s e dc l a i ms ag ai nst E CS , A m St af

f, L ibe rty Mu tua l, and the S ch ool D istri ct f or la ck of sub j ec tm atte r j ur isd ic tio n. W e em pha siz e that a ll w e ha ve be fo re us and are de ci din g a t this ti m e is w he the r the se c la im s by

Mc W ill iam s a ga ins t the r em ai nin g de fe ndants are so frivolous th at they

cannot sup port federal j urisdictio n. W e decide that they are not . W e do n ot i n any

w ay de ci de w he the r the c la im s c oul d surv ive aRu le 12( b) (6 ) m oti on t o di sm iss f or f ai lur e to s ta te ac au se of

a ct ionif suc h am oti on i s fi le d by the de fe ndants . S ee S outhpark S quare L td. v. Ci ty

of Ja ck son, 565 F . 2d 338, 343 n. 7 ( 5thCi r. 197 7) ( not ing the w el l- es ta bli she d do ctri ne that a

c la im m ight b e substanti al enough to suppo rt feder al j urisdictio n y et not sub stantial en oughto state ac au se of a ct ion ); se e al so K ar

na k E duc . T ru st v . Bo w en , 821 F. 2d 1 517, 152 0 ( 11th C ir . 198 7) ( dis ag re ei ng w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ion that i t l ac ke d su

bj ec t m atte r j ur isd ic tio n, but a ff irm ing non ethe le ss b ec au se the pla int if f fa ile d to state ac au se of a ct ion ); Whe el dinv. Whe el er , 373 U . S. 647 , 649 , 83 S. C t. 1441, 1444 (196 3). AF FIRMED IN P AR T, VA CA TED AN D REMA ND ED IN P AR T.