FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 4, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15181 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -005 42 -C V -W S D -1 J O S E P H C . S U N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S T E V E N G I R A R D O T , M A R Y G I R A R D O T , C O S T A L A N I E R H O M E O W N E R S A S S O C I A T I O N , M A R K A . B A K E R , S E A N M C I L H I N N E Y , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ay 4, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:We do not discuss defenda nt Mark A. B aker

beca use the district cour

t granted B aker ’s 1 motion to di smiss and Sun di d not appeal that order. 2 J os e ph C . S un ( “ S un” ) , pr oc e e di ng p ro se , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a nt of sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of S t even and M ary G i rardot(“ the G i rardot s” ), C ost a L ani erH om eow ners A ss oci at i on (“ C L H A ”) , and S ean M cI l hi nn ey ( “M c I lh in n e y ” ) ( c o lle c tiv e ly“D e f e n d a n ts ” ) . S u n f

ile ds u it a g a in s t D e f

e n d a n ts 1 unde r42 U . S . C . § 1983 ( “ § 1983" ) a nd the R a c ke t e e r i ng I nf l ue nc e a nd C orrupt O r g a n iz a tio n A c t, 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 6 2 , G a . C o d e A n n . § 1 6 - 1 4 - 4 ( “R I C O ” ) . O n app ea l , S un fi rs tar gu es thatthe st at e c ou rtcont em ptorder e nt er ed a ga i ns thi m w i thouthi s know l e dge c ons t i tut e s ar e c or de d a gr e e m e ntbe tw e e n the G i r a r dot s , M c I l hi nne y , a nd J udge J ohn O tt( “ J udge O tt ” ) of the S upe r i orC ourtof N e w t on C ounty , the r e bye s t abl i s hi ng ac ons pi r a c ybe tw e e n pr i va t e c i t i z e ns a nd a s ta te a c to rto v io la te h is d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts . S e c o n d , S u n a r g u e s th a t D e f e n d a n ts e n g a g e d in ap a tte rn o f

r a c k e te e r in g v iath e c r e a tio n o f C H L A in o r d e rto ille g a lly obt a i n apa r c e l of

l a nd. I. S tan d ard of R evi ew W e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s g r a n t o f s u m m a ryju d g m e n t de no vo , vi e w i ng th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e p a rtyo p p o s in g th e m o tio n . P atri ck v . Flo y d Me d. C tr ., 20 1 F . 3d 13 13 , 13 15 (11th C i r. 20 00 ). R ul e 56(c) st at es that s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is ap p r o p r ia te “if th e p le a d in g s , d e p o s itio n s , a n s w e r s to3

i nt e rr oga t or i e s , a nd a dm i s s i ons on f i l e , t oge the rw i th the a f

f i da vi t s , i f

a ny , s how th a t th e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e a s to a n ym a te r ia l f a c t a n dth a t th e m o v in g p a rtyis en ti tl ed to ju d g m en t as a m atter o f law .” F ed . R . C iv . P 5 6 (c ). If th e p lain ti ff’s e vi de nc e i s m e r e l yc ol or abl e , ori s nots i gni f i c a nt l ypr oba t i ve , s um m a ryj udgm e nt m a yb e g r a n te d in f

a v o ro f th e d e f e n d a n t. A nder

son v. L i bert

y L ob by, Inc. , 477 U . S . 24 2, 24 9, 10 6 S . C t . 25 05 , 25 11 , 91 L . E d. 2d . 20 2 (19 86 ). I I . D i s c u s s i on A . S e c t io n 1 9 8 3 C la im S u n a r g u e s th a t D e f

e n d a n ts c o n s p ir e dw ith J u d g e O tt to d e p r iv e h im o f h is du e proces s r i gh t s i n v i ol at i on of § 1 98 3. Iti s w el l se tt l ed that§ 1 98 3, by i t se l f, doe s notc r e a t e a nys ubs t a nt i ve r i ght s , butm e r e l ypr ovi de s “ am e thod f or vi nd i ca t i ng fe dera l ri gh t s e l se w here conferre d. ” G r aham v . C onnor , 490 U . S . 386, 3 9 3 - 9 4 , 1 0 9 S . C t. 1 8 6 5 , 1 8 7 0 , 1 0 4 L . E d . 2 d4 4 3 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . T h e r e f o r e , to p r e v a il in a § 1 9 8 3 act i o n , th e p l ai n t i ff m u stsh o w th ath e w as d ep ri v ed o f a fed eral ri g h tb y a p e r s o n a c tin g u n d e rth e c o lo ro f s ta te la w . G ri

f f i n v. C i t y of O pa -L ocka , 261 F . 3d 1 2 9 5 , 1 3 0 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . A § 1 98 3 act i on al l egi ng a deni al of procedural du e proces s r i gh t s, re qu i re s p ro o f o f th e fo l l o w i n g th ree el em en t s: (1 ) d ep ri v at i o n o f a co n st i tu t i o n al l yp ro t ect ed l i b erty o r p ro p erty i n t erest ; (2 ) st at e act i o n ; an d(3 ) co n st i tu t i o n al l y-4

in a d e q u a te p r o c e s s . A rr i n g to n v . He lms , 438 F . 3d 1336, 1347 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . “[ P ]r iv a te d e f e n d a n ts c a n b e h e ldliab le in a§ 1 9 8 3 a c tio n if they a cti n con ce rtw i th the st at e off i ci al s i n d epri vi ng a pl ai nt i ff of const i tut i on al ri gh t s. ” B endi bu rg v. D em psey , 90 9 F . 2d 46 3, 46 8 (11 th C i r. 19 90 ). T he pl ai nt i ff m u s t p r e s e n t e v id e n c e th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts r e a c h e da n u n d e r s ta n d in g to v io la te h is r ig h ts . R o w e v . C ityo

f Ft. L a u de rda le , 279 F . 3d 1271, 1283 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . T he pl a i nt i f f m us tpl e a d i n de t a i l , “ thr ough r e f e r e nc e t o m a t e r i a l f

a c t s , ” the na tur e of th e r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n th e s ta te a c to ra n dth e p r iv a te c itiz e n s . H arve y v . H arve y , 9 4 9 F .2 d 1 1 2 7 , 1 1 3 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) . I n th is c a s e , S u n h a s p r o v id e dn o e v id e n c e th a t D e f e n d a n ts w e r e in v o lv e din a c on spi ra cyor agre em entw i th Jud ge O ttso as t o con vertthei r a l l eged cond uct in to s ta te a c tio n s u b

je c t to § 1 9 8 3 liab ility . A ll th r e e in d iv id u a l d e f e n d a n ts expl i ci t l y deni ed havi ng an ou t -of- courtre l at i on shi p, m uch l es s aconspi ra t ori al r e l a t i ons hi p, w i th J udge O tt . S un’ s r e s pons e thr oughoutthe l i t i ga t i on w a s t o a l l e ge s i m pl ytha tD e f

e nda nt s c ons pi r e d w i th the j udge , w hi l e r e l y i ng s ol e l yon the c ont e m ptor de ra s hi s e vi de nc e . H e f a i l e d t o pl e a d i n de t a i l the na tur e of the a l l e ge d r e l a t i ons hi p ora gr e e m e ntbe tw e e n D e f e nda nt s a nd J udge O tt . T o s urvi ve sum m ary j ud gm ent , S un m ustoffe r m ore than al l egat i on s. T hi s c ou rthas c ons i s t e nt l yhe l d tha tc onc l us orya l l e ga t i ons w i thouts pe c i f i c s upport i ng f

a c t s ha ve5

n o p r o b a tiv e v a lu e , a n d a r e le g a llyin s u f f ic ie n t to d e f

e a t s u m m a ryju d g m e n t. See L ei gh v. W arner B ros. , Inc. , 2 1 2 F .3 d1 2 1 0 , 1 2 1 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ; Sa m m on s v . T ay lor , 967 F . 2d 1533, 1544- 45 & n. 5 ( 11th C i r . 1992) . R a the rtha n of f e r i ng e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt h is c o n s p ir a c yc o n te n tio n , m o s t o f S u n ’s p le a d in g s m e r e ly a r g u e th a tJ u d g e O tt ’ s ru l i n g s w e r e i n c o rr e c t . Su n ’ s a l l e g a t i o n s c a n n o to v e r c o me D e f e nda nt s ’ e vi de nc e tha tde ni e d a nyc ons pi r a t or i a l r e l a t i ons hi p, a nd, thus , the d i s tr i c tc o u rtp r o p e r l yg r a n t e d s u mma ryj u d g me n to n Su n ’ s § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m. B . R I C O C la im N e xt , S un a r gue s tha tD e f e nda nt s e nga ge d i n apa tt e rn of r a c ke t e e r i ng a c tiv ityb yc o m m ittin g a c ts o f f r au da n dp e r

ju ryin a1 9 9 8 s ta te c iv il s u it, p r im a r ily vi athe c r e a t i on of

aphonyhom e ow ne r s a s s oc i a t i on de s i gne d t o i l l e ga l l yobt a i n a pa r c e l of l a nd. S un a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ryj udgm e nt shou l d b e r ever se d b ec ause the courtbase d i t s dec i si on sol el y on act s c om m i tt ed byD e f e nda nt s w i th r e s pe c tt o the c ont e m pthe a r i ng. S un a r gue s tha the s houl d be a l l ow e d t o l i t i ga t e a l l of the a c t i ons t a ke n byD e f e nda nt s , i nc l udi ng a c t i vi t i e s i n the o r ig in a l s ta te c iv il s u it. T he f e de r a l R I C O a c ts t a t e s tha t“ [ i ] ts ha l l be unl a w f ul f ora nype r s on e m pl oy e d byora s s oc i a t e d w i th a nye nt e rpr i s e e nga ge d i n, orthe a c t i vi t i e s of w hi c h a f f e c t , i nt e r s t a t e orf

or e i gn c om m e r c e , t o c onduc torpa rt i c i pa t e , di r e c t l yor6

i ndi r e c t l y , i n the c onduc tof s uc h e nt e rpr i s e ’ s a f

f a i r s thr ough apa tt e rn of r a c ke t e e r i ng a c t i vi tyorc ol l e c t i on of unl a w f ul de bt . ” 18 U . S . C . § 1962( c ) . T he G e o r g iaR I C O s ta tu te is s im ila ra n dis m o d e le da f te rth e f e d e r a l a c t. See G a . C ode A nn. § 16- 14- 4( a ) . T o s uc c e e d on aR I C O c l a i m , the pl a i nt i f f m us ts how : ( 1) the e xi s t e nc e of

a n e nt e rpr i s e ; ( 2) tha tthe e nt e rpr i s e a f f e c t e d i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ; ( 3) tha tthe de f

e nda ntw a s e m pl oy e d byora s s oc i a t e d w i th the e nt e rpr i s e ; ( 4) the d ef en d an t p ar ti cip ated , d irec tl y o r in d irec tl y, in th e c o n d u ct o f th e e n terp rise ’s a f f a i r s ; a nd ( 5) tha tthe de f e nda ntpa rt i c i pa t e d thr ough apa tt e rn of r a c ke t e e r i ng a c tiv ity . U

ni ted States v. Starre t , 55 F . 3d 15 25 , 15 41 (11th C i r. 19 95 ). A patt ern of r a c ke t e e r i ng a c t i vi tyr e qui r e s a tl e a s ttw o a c t s of r a c ke t e e r i ng a c t i vi ty . 18 U . S . C . § 1 96 1(5). R ac ket ee ri ng i s def i ned as “ any a ctor threa ti nv ol vi ng m urder, k id n ap p in g , g a m b lin g , ar s o n , r o b b e ry , b r ib e ry ,” e tc . I d. § 1 9 6 1 ( 1 ) . A n e nt e rpr i s e i nc l ude s a ny“ i ndi vi dua l , pa rtne r s hi p, c orpor a t i on, a s s oc i a t i on, or other l egal ent i ty, and any un i on or grou p o f i nd i vi du al s a ss oci at ed i n fac t al tho ug h n ota l egal ent i ty. ” I d. § 1961( 4) . “ [ T ] he de f i ni t i ve f a c t ori n de t e rm i ni ng the exi st ence of a R IC O ent erpri se i s the exi st ence of an as soci at i on of i nd i vi du al e nt i t i e s , how e ve rl oos e ori nf orm a l , tha tf

urni s he s ave hi c l e f

orthe c om m i s s i on of tw o o rm o r e p r e d ic a te s c r im e s , th a t is , th e p a tte rn o f r a c k e te e r in g a c tiv ityr e q u is ite t o the R IC O vi ol at i on . ” U ni ted States v. G oldi n Indus. , Inc. , 219 F . 3d 1271, 12757

(11th C i r. 20 00 ). O n appe a l , S un doe s notf oc us on hi s s ubs t a nt i ve R I C O c l a i m a s de c i de d by the di stri ctcourt , bu tra ther c hal l enges an ear l i erdi stri ctcourtorder i nd i ca t i ng that S un di d n othave st andi ng t o al l ege R IC O vi ol at i on s w i th res pectt o any cond uct du ri ng the ori gi nal st at e c i vi l ac t i on , as he w as no ta party t o thatac t i on . H ow ever , e ve n i f w e c ons i de rabr oa de rr a nge of D e f e nda nt s ’ c onduc ti nc l udi ng the 1998 c i vi l s ui t , S un’ s a r gum e ntdoe s notgo be y ond m e r e a c c us a t i ons uns upport e d by evi dence. S un fr equent l y c hal l enges the val i di ty of C L H A , ar gu i ng thati tw as se t u p so l el y t o d efrau d h i m . H o w ev er, h e p o i n t s t o n o ev i d en ce th atan en t erp ri se exi st ed for the pu rposes of R IC O , as C L H A w as no ta vehi cl e f or any c ri m e. In fact , S u n ’ s o w n ev i d en ce i n d i cat es th atC L H A w as o rg an i zed fo r a p ro p er p u rp o se a nd i nc l ude d othe rr e s i de nt s of the C os t aL a ni e rs ubdi vi s i on. M uc h l i ke hi s § 1983 c la im , S u n o n lyo f

f e r s c o n c lu s o rya lle g a tio n s w ith n o e v id e n c e w ith r e s p e c t to h is R I C O c l a i m . C onc l us orya l l e ga t i ons w i th no e vi de nc e c a nnotde f e a tam ot i on f

or s u m m a ryju d g m e n t. Se e L e i gh , 21 2 F . 3d at12 17 . A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourt p r o p e r lyg r a n te d D e f

e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n f

o rs u m m a ryju d g m e n t. AF F I RME D.