FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J ANUARY 25, 2011
J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
No. 1 0- 12 65 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
D.C. Dock et No. 0 :0 8- cv -6 15 19 -MGC

JUSS I K. KIVISTO,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us

MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STON E, PLC, HODGSON RUSS, LLP, SUSAN I. ROBBI NS, GEOFFREY M. CHIN, BRIAN K. DUFFEY, et al
.,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s- App el le es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 25 , 20 11 )

Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES and MARCUS , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

PER CURI AM:Ju ss i K. Kiv is to , pr oc eed in g pr o se , ap pe al s fro m th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l

fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl a i m o f h i s ci vi l co m pl ai nt ba se d on th e fed eral Rac ke te er

In flu en ced an d Co rru pt Org an iz at io n (“ RICO” ) st at ut e, 18 U.S.C. § 19 61 et se q.; an d

42 U.S.C. §§ 19 83 , 19 85 (2 ) an d (3 ). After care fu l re vi ew, we affi rm

.

We rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of a m ot io n to di sm is s un d e r

Fed .R.Ci v.P

. 12 (b )(6 ) fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m , acce pt in g th e al le ga ti on s in th e

co m pl ai nt as t r u e an d co ns tru in g th em in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e pl ai nt iff

.

Am eri can Den ta l Ass oc ia ti on v. Ci gn a Co rp ., 60 5 F.3 d 12 83
, 12 88 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ).

Un de r Fed .R.Ci v.P

. 8( a)(2 ), a pl ead in g m us t co nt ai n “ a sh or t an d pl ai n

st at em en t of th e cl ai m sh owi ng th at th e pl ead er is en ti tl ed to rel ie f.” In Twom bl y , th e

Su pr em e Co ur t h el d t ha t:

W hi le a co m

pl ai nt at ta ck ed by a Ru l e 1 2 ( b) (6 ) m ot io n to di sm is s do es no t ne ed de ta i l e d fact ua l al le ga ti on s, a p l a i nt iff ’s ob li ga ti on to pr ov id e th e gr ou nd s of h i s

en ti tl em en t to rel ie f req ui res mo r e th an la be ls an d

co nc lu si on s, an d a fo rm

ul ai c rec it at io n o f th e el em en ts of

a cau se of a ct io n wi ll no t d o.

Bel l Atl

. Co rp

. v. Twom

bl y , 55 0 U.S. 54 4, 55 5 (2 00 7) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns , ci ta ti on s,

an d al te rat io n s o mi t t ed ). Fu rth er, “ [f]actu al al le ga ti on s m us t be en ou gh to rai se a
rig ht to rel ie f ab ov e th e sp ecu la ti ve le ve l

. . . on th e as su m pt io n th at al l th e al le ga ti on s

in th e co m

pl ai nt are tru e (ev en if do ub tfu l in fact ).” Id

. (q uo ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on s

2om it te d)

. To su rv iv e a m ot io n to di sm is s, a co m pl ai nt m us t co nt ai n su ffi ci en t fact ua l

m at te r, acce pt ed as tru e, to “ st at e a cl ai m to rel ie f th at is pl au si bl e on it s face ;” whe n
pl ai nt iff s “ ha ve no t nu dg ed th ei r cl ai m s acro ss th e li ne fro m co nc ei va bl e to pl au si bl e,

th ei r co m pl ai nt m us t b e d is m is se d.” Id. at 57 0.

In Iq ba l, th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at “ th e te ne t th at a co ur t m us t acce pt as tru e

al l of th e al le ga ti on s co nt ai ne d in a co m pl ai nt is in ap pl ic ab le to le ga l co nc lu si on s.”

Ash cro ft v. Iq ba l, 55 6 U.S.

__ , 12 9 S.Ct

. 19 37
, 19 49 (2 00 9)

. “ Thre ad ba re reci ta ls of

th e el em en ts of a cau se of act i o n, su pp or te d by m ere co nc lu so ry st at em en ts , d o no t

su ffi ce.” Id

. In co ns id eri ng a m ot io n to di sm is s, a co ur t s h o u l d “1) el im in at e an y

al le ga ti on s in th e co m

pl ai nt th at are m erel y le ga l co nc lu si on s; an d 2) whe re th ere are

well -p le ad ed fact ua l al le ga ti on s, ‘ass um e th ei r ve raci ty an d th en de te rm in e whe th er

th ey pl au si bl y gi ve ris e to an en ti tl em en t to rel ie f.’” Am eri can Den ta l, 6 0 5 F

. 3 d at

12 90 (q uo ti ng Iq ba l, 12 9 S.Ct

. at 19 50 ). Fu rth er, “ co ur ts m ay in fer fro m th e fact ua l

al le ga ti on s in th e co m

pl ai nt ‘obv io us al te rn at iv e ex pl an at io n[ s],’ whi ch su gg es t

la wfu l con du ct rat he r th an th e un la wfu l con du ct th e pl ai nt iff wou ld as k th e co ur t to

in fer.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Iq ba l, 1 29 S.Ct

. 19 51 -5 2)

. Fi na ll y , be cau se th is is an

in te rp ret at io n of Ru le 8, the T wom bl y pl au si bi li ty st an da rd ap pl ie s to al l ci vi l act io ns

.

Id . (ci ti ng Iqb al , 12 9 S .Ct. at 19 53 ).

3Sect io n 19 62 (c) of th e RICO st at ut e s r e qu ire s th at a pl ai nt iff pr ov e th at a

de fen da nt pa rti ci pa te d in th e co nd uc t of an en te rp ris e’s affa irs “ th ro ug h a pa tt ern of

rack et eeri ng act iv it y .” 18 U.S.C. § 19 62 (c). Thu s, to es ta bl is h a fed eral ci vi l RICO

v i o l a ti on , th e pl ai nt iff m us t sh ow “ (1 ) co nd uc t (2 ) of an en te rp ris e (3 ) th ro ug h a

pa tt ern (4 ) of rack et eeri ng act iv it y .” W il li am s v. Mo ha wk In du s. In c., 46 5 F.3 d 12 77
,

12 82 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ) (q u o t a t i o n om it te d)

. In ad di ti on , pl ai nt iff s in a ci vi l RICO

act io n m us t al so sa ti sf

y th e req ui rem en ts of § 19 64 (c), whi ch req ui res (1 ) a sh owi ng

of an in jury to “ bu si ne ss or pr op ert y ,” an d (2 ) th at su ch in jury was “ by reas on of

” th e

su bs ta nt iv e RICO vi ol at io n. Id .; 18 U.S.C. § 19 64 (c). “ R a c k e t e e r i ng act iv it y ” is

de fin ed to in cl ud e sp eci fie d pr ed ic at e act s su ch a s mai l f r a ud an d ex to rti on

. 18

U.SC.§ 19 61 (1 ). In or de r to pr ov e a pa tt ern of rack et eeri ng in a ci vi l RICO cas e, “ a
pl ai nt iff m

us t sh ow at le as t two rack et eeri ng pr ed ic at es th at are rel at ed
, an d th at th ey

am ou nt to or po se a th reat of co nt in ue d cri m in al act iv it y .” A mer ic an Den ta l, 60 5

F.3 d at 12 90 -9 1. W he n a ci vi l RICO cl ai m is br ou gh t wit h res pe ct to a cl os ed pe rio d

of ti m e (s uc h as al le g e d frau d ari si ng fro m th e se tt le m en t of a la wsu it ), co nt in ui ty

can no t be sh own by al le ga ti on s o f a sc he m e th at la st ed on ly ni ne m on th s. See

Ja ck so n v. Bel ls ou th Tele co m m s., 37 2 F.3 d 12 50
, 12 64 -6 7 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ) (ap pl y in g

fed eral pr eced en t in th e co nt ex t of a Fl or id a RICO cl ai m ). An op en -en de d co nt in ui ty

4can no t be sh own by co nc lu so ry al le ga ti on s th at on ce be gu n, th e al le ge d m is co nd uc t

th reat en s t o c on ti nu e in to th e fu tu re. Id . at 1 26 7- 69

.

Ext or ti on is de fin ed as “ th e ob ta i n i n g of pr op ert y fro m an ot he r, wit h hi s

co ns en t, in du ced by wro ng fu l us e of act ua l or thr eat en ed fo rce, vi ol en ce, or fear
, or

un de r co lo r of of

fic ia l rig ht .” 18 U.S.C. § 19 51 (b )(2 )

. “ Mai l or wire frau d oc cu rs

whe n a pe rs on (1 ) in te nt io na ll y pa rti ci pa te s in a sc he m e to de frau d an ot he r of m on ey

or pr op ert y an d (2 ) us es th e m ai ls or wire s in fu rth eran ce of th at sc he m e.” Am eri can

Den ta l, 6 05 F.3d at 12 90 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Fu rth er, RICO al le ga ti on s ba se d o n

pr ed ic at e act s of mai l frau d “ m us t co m pl y no t on ly wit h th e pl au si bi li ty cri te ria

art i c u l at ed in Twom

bl y an d Iq ba l bu t al so wit h Fed .R.Ci v.P

. 9( b) ’s he ig ht en ed

pl ead in g st an da rd
, whi ch req ui res th at in al le gi ng frau d or m is ta ke
, a pa rty m us t st at e

wit h pa rti cu la rit y th e ci rc um sta nc es co ns ti tu ti ng frau d or m is ta ke .” Am eri can Den ta l,

60 5 F.3 d at 12 91 (q uo ta ti on an d a l t e r a ti on om it te d)

. Acco rd in gl y , a pl ai nt iff m us t

al le ge , as to each de fen da nt , “ (1 ) th e pr eci se s t a t e men t s, do cu m en ts , or

m is rep res en ta ti on s m ad e; (2 ) th e ti m e, pl ace, an d pe rs o n r e s p on si bl e fo r th e

st at em en t; (3 ) th e co nt en t an d m an ne r in whi ch th es e st at em en ts m is le d th e Pl ai nt iff s;

an d (4 ) wha t th e de fen da nt s ga in ed by t he al le ge d frau d.” Id . ( qu o t a t i o n o m it te d)

.

In a cas e in vo lv in g m

ul ti pl e de fen da nt s, th e co m pl ai nt m us t no t lu m

p to ge th er al l of

th e d efen da nt s, as “ th e co m pl ai nt sh ou ld in fo rm

each de fen da nt of t he na tu re o f hi s

5al le ge d pa rti c i p a t i o n in th e frau d.” Am br os ia Co al & Co ns tr. Co

. v. Mo ral es , 48 2

F.3 d 1 30 9, 1 31 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

Sect io n 19 62 (d ) of th e RICO st at ut es m ak e it il le ga l fo r an y on e to co ns pi re to

vi ol at e on e of th e su bs ta nt iv e pr ov is io ns of RICO, in cl ud in g § 19 62 (c). 18 U.S.C. §

19 62 (d ). “ A pl ai nt iff can es ta bl is h a RICO co ns pi racy cl ai m in on e of two way s: (1 )

by sh owi ng th at th e de fen da nt ag reed to th e ov eral l ob jecti ve of th e co ns pi racy; or (2 )

by sh owi ng th at th e de fen da n t a g reed to co m m it two pr ed ic at e act s.” Am eri can

Den ta l, 60 5 F.3 d at 12 93 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Fu rth er, “ [t]o be gu il ty of co ns pi racy,

. . . pa rti es m

us t ha ve ag reed to co m

m it an act th at is it se lf il le ga l -- pa rti es can no t be

fo un d gu il ty of co ns pi rin g to co m m it an act th at i s n o t i t s e l f ag ai ns t th e la w.”

Ja ck so n, 3 72 F.3d at 1 26 9 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

To su ccee d on 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 cl ai m , a pa rty m us t es ta bl is h th at th e of

fen di ng

co nd uc t was co m

m it te d by a pe rs on act in g un de r co lo r of st at e la w an d th at t h e

co nd uc t de pr iv ed hi m of rig ht s se cu red by th e Co ns ti tu ti on or la ws of th e U n i t e d

S t a t es

. Fu ll m an v. Grad di ck
, 73 9 F.2 d 55 3, 56 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 84 ). A pl ai nt i f f

cl ai m in g a co ns pi racy un de r § 19 83 m us t mak e pa rti cu la riz ed al le ga ti on s th at a

co ns pi racy ex is ts

. See Ph il li ps v. Mas hb ur n, 74 6 F.2d 78 2, 78 4 (1 1t h Ci r.19 84 ). A

pr iv at e pa rty can be vi ewed as a “ st at e act or ” fo r § 19 83 pu rp os e s “ [o ]nly in rare

ci rcu m st an ces .” Harv ey v. Harv ey , 94 9 F.2 d 11 27
, 11 30 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 92 ). Fo ll owi ng

6Iq ba l, “ co m

pl ai nt s in § 19 83 c a s e s must no w co nt ai n ei th er di rect or in fere nt ia l

al le ga ti on s res pe ct in g al l th e m at eri al el em en ts ne ces sa ry to su st ai n a reco ve ry un de r

so m e vi ab le le ga l th eo ry .” Ran da ll v. Sco tt , 61 0 F.3d 70 1, 70 8 n.2 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 )

(q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

Sect io n 19 85 co ve rs co ns pi raci es to in te rfer e wit h ci vi l rig ht s. See 42 U.S.C.

§ 19 85

. “ The pu rp os e of § 19 85 was to st ifl e th e se rio us cl as s- ba se d dep riv at io n of

c o n s t i t u t io na l rig ht s by pr iv at e pa rti es , no t to se rv e as a ge ne ral fed eral to rt la w

. ”

Trawin sk i v. Uni te d Tech no lo g i e s , 31 3 F.3 d 12 95
, 12 99 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 ). Sect io n

19 85 (2 ) pr ov id es a cau se of act io n fo r ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce w h e r e “ two or m or e

pe rs on s co ns pi re fo r th e pu rp os e of im pe d in g, hi nd eri ng , ob st ru ct in g, or de feat in g,

in an y m an ne r, th e du e co ur se of jus ti ce in an y St at e or Terri to ry , wit h in te nt to de ny

to an y cit iz en th e eq ua l p ro te ct io n o f th e la ws . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 5( 2)

.

Sect io n 19 85 (3 ) pr ov id es a rem ed y fo r a co ns pi racy to in te rfer e wit h ci vi l

rig ht s. See 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 5( 3) . To st at e a cl ai m un de r § 1 98 5( 3) , a pl ai nt iff m us t

al le ge : (1 ) a co ns pi racy; (2 ) fo r th e pu rp os e of de pr iv in g a pe rs on or cl as s of pe rs on s

of th e eq ua l pr ot ect io n of th e la ws, or of eq ua l pr iv il eg es an d i m m un it ie s u nd er t he

la ws; an d (3 ) an act in fu rth eran ce of th e co ns pi racy, (4 ) res ul ti n g i n a n i n jury to

pe rs on or pr op ert y , or a de pr iv at io n of an y rig ht or pr iv il eg e of a ci ti zen of th e Uni te d

St at es

. Ch il dr ee v

. U A P / G A AG CHEM, In c., 92 F.3 d 11 40
, 11 46 -4 7 (1 1t h Ci r.

719 96 ). To pr ov e th e se co nd el em en t, th e pl ai nt iff m us t sh ow th at th e de pr iv at io n of

rig ht s or pr iv il eg es oc cu rred as a res ul t of “ so m e raci al
, or

. . . ot he rwis e cl as s- ba se d,

i n vi di ou sl y di sc riminat or y an im us be hi nd th e co ns pi rat or s’ act io ns .” Id

. at 1 1 4 7

(q uo ta ti on s o m it te d)

.

F i r st , be cau se Kiv is to fai le d to su ffi ci en tl y pl ead fact s th at an y of t h e

de fen da nt s co m

m it te d e it he r m ai l fr au d o r ex to rti on , th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t er r in

di sm is si ng hi s su bs ta nt iv e RICO cl ai m s. Seco nd
, be cau se Kiv is to di d no t pl au si bl y

al le ge su ffi ci en t fact s reg ard in g th e de fen da nt s’ ag reem en t to en ga ge in th e on go in g

co nd uc t of an ent erp ris e th ro ug h a pa tt ern of rack et eeri ng act iv it y , th e di st ric t cou rt

di d n ot err i n d is m is si ng hi s R ICO co ns pi racy clai m s.

Fi na ll y , Kiv is to de cl ares th at th e de fen da nt s di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t h im ba se d

on h i s F in ni sh or ig in
, bu t be si de s hi s ba re as se rti on s, Kiv is to ’s se co nd am en de d

co m pl a i n t co nt ai ns no fact ua l al le ga ti on s sh owi ng th at hi s co ns ti tu ti on al or ci vi l

rig ht s ha ve be en in fri ng ed by a co ns pi racy or ot he rwis e. Thu s, th e di st ric t co ur t di d

no t er r in di sm is si ng hi s v ari ou s ci vi l ri gh ts cla im s. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

.

AFFIRMED.

8