A L D - 0 6 8 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. 10- 3380

___________ M A RC U S D U K ES,

A ppel l ant v . C A T H E R I N E E . PA PPA S, Seni orT r i al C ouns el or , Secur i t i es and Exchange Co mm i s s i o n ; AM Y GR E E R, ( S e c u r i t i e s a n dE x c h a n g e Co mm i s s i o n ) ; KAT Y C ODY, ( Secur i t i es and Exchange Com m i s s i on) ; K E V I N D E L A C Y , ( Secur i t i es and Exchange C om m i s s i on) ; L U C Y C A R D W E L L , A s s i s t antA tt orneyG ener al of M ary l and

____________________________________ 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 09- 3869) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le W il li am H . Y o h n Jr.

____________________________________ S u b mi tt e df

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir dC ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n dI.O .P . 1 0 .6 D ece m ber16, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , H A R D I M A N and V A N A SK I E , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: D ece m ber28, 2010)

_________ OPINI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C U R I A M. P ro se ap p e llan t M a rc u s D u k e s a p p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f h is compl ai ntunder28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291Iti s unclearw hetherD uk es conti nu es t o assertcl ai m s that he i ncluded i n h i s fi rs t 1 amended compl ai ntbutom i tt ed fr om hi s s econd a m ended c om pl ai nt . T o the ext entthat thos e cl ai m s have notbeen w ai ved, s ee U ni t ed St at es ex r el . A tki ns on v. Pa. Shi pbui l di ng C o. , 473 F. 3d 506, 516 ( 3d C i r . 2007) , w e conc l ude, fores s ent i al l ythe r eas ons pr ovi ded b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt , th a t th e c la im s f a il a s a m a tte r o f

la w . 2 and exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s or der . See A l l ah v. Sei ver l i ng, 229 F . 3 d2 2 0 , 2 2 3 ( 3 dCi r . 2 0 0 0 ) . Be c a u s e th i s ap p e a l p r e s e n t s n o s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n , we w i l l s umm a r i l ya ff

i rm the D i s tr i c tCourt ’ s j ud gmen t . Se e 3dCi r . L. A . R. 27 . 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. D ukes co- founded the Fi nanci al W ar far e C l ub and C ovenantE coN et , I nc. , w hi ch s ol d m ember s hi ps i n a purport ed i nves tm entcl ub t o A fr i can A m er i cans . T he FB I and S E C in v e s tig a te dD u k e s a n du ltim a te ly in s titu te dc iv il a n dc ri m in a l a c tio n s a g a in s t h im . T he cr i m i nal act i on pr ocee ded fi r s t , and D ukes w as convi ct ed of mai l fr aud and money l aunder i ng and s ent ence d t o 108 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . D ukes ’ s att empt s t o chal l enge the c o n v ict ion — b o th o n ap p ea l and in a p roc ee d ing u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 — w ere uns ucce s s ful . A tthe conc l us i on of the cr i m i nal act i on, the ci vi l act i on r es um ed, and the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern D istri ct of P en n sy lvan ia gra n ted s u m m ary j udgm entt o the SE C on i t s cl ai m s thatD ukes comm i tt ed fr aud and vi ol at ed the Secur i t i es A c t. D u k e s th e n f

iled th is a c tio n . In h is s e c o n da m e n d e dc o m p lain t, w h ich is a t issu e in th is a p p e a l, h e a ss e rte dc laim s a risin g u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a n dB iv e n s v . S ix

1 U n k n o w n N a m e dA g e n ts, 4 0 3 U .S . 3 8 8 (1 9 7 1 ). M o re sp e c if ica lly , h e ra ise dtw o c laim s: ( 1) s ever al att orney s and an a ccount antempl oy ed bythe SE C ( “the SE C defe ndant s ”)D u k e s’s c laim s a g a in st th e S E C d e f e n d a n ts a re p ro p e rlyb ro u g h t u n d e r B iv e n s, w h ile h is 2 c la im a g a in s t M a ryla n d ’s a s s is ta n t a tto rn e yg e n e ra l is p ro p e rl yb ro u g h t u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 . See Lora - Pena v. Fed. B ur eau of I nves t i gat i on, 529 F. 3d 503, 504 n. 1 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . T he le g a l a n a lysis d e ta ile db e lo w ap p lie s w ith e q u a l f o rc e to b o th s p e c ie s o f

c la im s . 3 creat ed a spreadshe etfor the cri m i nal pr osecuti on cat al og i ng D uk es’ s com pan i es’ fi nanci al tr ans act i ons and vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s underB r adyv. M ary l and, 373 U . S. 83 ( 1963) , byr efus i ng t o di s cl os e the s pr eads heett o the pr os ecut i on orD ukes ; and ( 2) an SE C defe ndantand M ary l and’ s as s i s t antatt orneygener al m ade and cont i nue t o m ake defa m at orys t at ement s aboutD ukes ’ s bus i nes s es , thus underm i ni ng hi s eff ort s t o r ecove r l o s tm o n e y. 2 T he D i s tr i ctC ourtperm i tt ed D ukes t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s , butthen r ej ect ed both cl ai m s and di s m i s s ed the compl ai nts ua s pont e pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) . T he C ourtconcluded thatanyamendm entw oul d be fut i l e and thus di s m i s s ed the compl ai nt w i thoutpr ovi di ng l eave t o amend. W e d is c e rn n o e rr o r i n th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ru lin g th a t D u k e s ’s B ra d yc la im f a ils . W hi l e B r adycl ai m s ar e typi cal l ydi r ect ed aga i ns tpr os ecut or s , w e have s ugges t ed that o th e r g o v e rn m e n t ac to rs m a yb e liab le f o r f a ili n g to d isc lo se e x c u lp a to ryin f o rm a tio n to the pr os ecut or , s ee Y arr i s v. C ountyof D el aw ar e, 465 F. 3d 129, 141 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , and w e a s s u m e h e re th a t th e S E C d e f e n d a n ts re p re s e n t a p ro p e r t a rg e t. N e v e rth e le s s , a m er i t or i ous B r adycl ai m , bydefi ni t i on, i m pl i es the i nval i di tyof the att endantcr i m i nal convi ct i on. See Str i ckl erv. G r eene , 527 U . S. 263, 281 ( 1999) ( “[T] her e i s nevera r eal ‘B ra d yv io latio n ’ u n les s th e n o n d isc lo su re w a s s o se rio u s th a t th e re is a re a so n ab le p ro b ab ility th a t th e s u p p re s s e de v id e n c e w o u ld h a v e p ro d u c e da d if f e re n t v e rd ic t.” ).4

D ukes ’ s B r adycl ai m i s ther efor e barr ed bythe rul e of H eck v. H um phr ey , 512 U . S. 477 ( 1994) . See, e. g. , A m akerv. W ei ner , 179 F. 3d 48, 51 ( 2d C i r . 1999) ( hol di ng thatB r ady claim s im p li ca te th e v ali d ityo f th e re su lt ing co n v ict ion an dare thu s b arred b yH ec k ). D ukes s eeks t o avoi d thi s r es ul tbyar gui ng thatw hi l e thi s s pr eads heetw oul d have been he l pful t o hi m , furtherpr ocee di ngs ar e nec es s arybefor e i tcan be det erm i ned w h e th e r its su p p re ss io n w a s s u f f icie n tlyp re

ju d icia l to c a ll h is c rim in a l v e rd ict in to q u e stio n . H o w e v e r, th is a rg u m e n t cu ts b o th w a y s. If th e re is n o t a “ re a so n ab le p ro b ab ili tyth a t h is c o n v ictio n o r se n ten c e w o u ldh a v e b e e n d if f e re n t h a dth e se m a ter ials been di s cl os ed, ” then ther e has been no Bra dyvi ol at i on, Str i ckl er , 547 U . S. at296, and D u k e s h a s f

a iled to p lea dth e u n d e rly in g c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n n e c e ss a ryto m a k e o u t a B iven s claim , see B iven s, 4 0 3 U . S . at 39 7 . A cc o rdin g ly , u n d er e ith er sc en ario, D u k es’s c la im c a n n o t s u c c e e d . W e al s o aff

i rm the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s al t ernat i ve hol di ng thatther e w as no B r ady vi ol at i on becaus e the i nform at i on D ukes cl ai m s the governm entw i thhel d w as know n by a n da v a ilab le to h im . “[ T ]h e ra tio n a le u n d e rly in g B ra d yis n o t to su p p lya d e f e n d a n t w ith al l the evi dence i n the G overnm ent ’ s pos s es s i on w hi ch mi ghtconce i vabl yas s i s tthe p re p a ra tio n o f

h is d e f e n se , b u t to a ss u re th a t th e d e f e n d a n t w illn o t b e d e n ied a c c e ss to exculpat oryevi dence onl yknow n t o the G overnm ent . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Z acks on, 6 F. 3d 911, 918 ( 2d C i r . 1993) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i tt ed, emphasi s added) . T her efor e, “B r adydoes notcompel the governm entt o furni s h a def endantw i th i nform at i on w hi ch he5

al r eadyhas or , w i th anyr eas onabl e di l i gence , he can obt ai n hi m s el f. ” U ni t ed St at es v. P e lu llo , 3 9 9 F .3 d1 9 7 , 2 1 3 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). D ukes does notal l ege thathe w as unaw ar e of orunabl e t o obt ai n i nform at i on conce rni ng the fi nanci al tr ans act i ons cat al oged i n the s pr eads heet ; t o the contr ary , as the D istric t C o u rt n o ted , in h is c rim in a l ap p e a l h e a c k n o w led g e dth a t h e h a da c c e ss to re lev a n t b a n kre c o rd s b e f o re trial. S e e U n ited S tate s v . D u k e s, 2 4 2 F . A p p ’x 3 7 , 4 9 (4 th C i r . 2007) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. D i xon, 132 F. 3d 192, 199 ( 5th C i r . 1997) ( no B r ady v io latio n w h e n g o v e rn m e n t se ize dd e f e n d a n ts’ f

in a n c ial re c o rd s b e c a u se d e f e n d a n ts ei therknew ors houl d have know n aboutthi s i nform at i on) . W hi l e D ukes m ayhave f ound i tm or e conve ni entt o w ork fr om the governm ent ’ s s pr eads heetthan fr om the r aw f in a n c ial in f

o rm a tio n th a t h e e ith e r a lre a d yh a do r c o u ldh a v e a c q u ire dw ith re a so n ab le di l i gence , B r adydoes notr equi r e the governm ent“t o fac i l i t at e the compi l at i on of e x c u lp a to rym a ter ial th a t, w ith so m e in d u stry , d e f e n se c o u n se l co u ldm a rsh a l o n th e ir o w n .” U n ite dS ta te s v . R u n y a n , 2 9 0 F .3 d2 2 3 , 2 4 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). W e l i kew i s e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC ourtthatD ukes ’ s defa m at i on cl ai m l acks m erit . “T h e S u p rem e C o u rth as m ad e c lear tha t fed era l cou rt s are n o t t o v iew d ef am atory act s as cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons . ” B oy anow s ki v. C api t al A r ea I nt erm edi at e U ni t , 215 F. 3d 396, 400 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . T hi s barappl i es even w her e the pl ai nt i ff c l ai m s thatthe defa m at orys t at ementcaus ed fi nanci al i nj ury . See K el l yv. B or ough of Sayr evi l l e, 107T o th e e x ten t th a t D u k e s a ss e rts c laim s a g a in st S E C e m p lo y e e s K e v in D e lac e ya n dK a ty 3 C od yfor creat i ng fal se evi den ce fo r use athis 20 05 cri m i nal tri al , these cl ai m s ar e al so barr ed byH eck. See, e. g. , Per ez v. Si fel , 57 F. 3d 503, 505 ( 7th C i r . 1995) . E ven i f they w ere n o t, the c lai m s w o u ld sti llfa ilb ec au se, as the D istri ct C o u rtco rrectl yh eld, th eyare b a rr e db yth e ap p lic ab le s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s .

6 F. 3d 1073, 1078 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . T her efor e, D ukes ’ s defa m at i on cl ai m fai l s as a matt erof l a w. 3 Fi nal l y , w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatfurtheramendm entt o D ukes ’ s compl ai ntw oul d be fut i l e, and ther efor e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourtpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed the compl ai ntw i thout pr ovi di ng l eave t o amend. See G r ay s on v. M ayvi ew St at e H os p. , 293 F. 3d 103, 114 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). W e w il l th u s su m m aril yaf firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er d ism issi n g D u k es’s s e c o n da m e n d e dc o m p la in t. S e e 3 dC ir . L .A .R . 2 7 .4 ; I .O .P . 1 0 .6 .