Mar k R . K rav itz , o f t

he Un ite d S tat es D istric t C ourt f or t he Di str ict

of Co nn ect icut, * sitti ng by designati on . 10-0492-cv Marg are t Z ava lid

ro ga and To m as Zaval id

ro ga v. Jo se ph

S . C ot e, I ndiv id

ual ly, et al
. UNITED STA TES COU RT OF AP PEALS FO R T HE SE CO ND CI RC UI T SUMMARY ORDER RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HA VE P RE CE DE NT I AL E F F E CT . C I T AT I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR A FT ER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED B Y T H IS C O U R T ’S L O C A L R U L E 3 2 .1 .1 A N D F E D E R A L R U L E O F A P P E L L A T E P R O C E D U R E 3 2 .1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A DO CUM ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L A P P E ND I X OR A N E L E CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N O TA TI O N “ SUM M A R Y O R D ER ” ) . A PAR TY CI TI N G A SUM M A R Y O R D ER M U ST S ER V E A CO PY O F IT O N A N Y P A R T Y N O T R E P R E S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L . At a stated Term of

the United Stat es Court of Appeals for the Second Cir cuit, held a t the Daniel Patri ck Moynihan United St ates Courthouse , 500 Pearl Stre et, in the Cit y of New York, on the 6 day of October, two thousand and t en.

th Present: ROSEMAR Y S. POOL ER, PETER W . HALL, Ci rcu it J ud ges , MARK R. K

RAVITZ, * District Judge
.

_____________________________________________________ MARGARET ZAVA LIDROGA , TOMAS ZAVALIDROGA, Plain tif fs- Ap pe lla nts , -v. - 10 -04 92 -cv JOSEPH S. C OTE, individually, JOHN DOE, DORIS M. KELLEY, JAMES E . KELLEY, DAVID LA PLANTE, individually and officially a s an Oneida County Sheriff’s deputy, GREG OR

Y J . A MO RO SO , in div idu all y and of fi cia lly , T OW

N O F A NN SV IL LE , a

m un ici pa l entity, De fen da nts -A

pp ellees . FOR APP ELLANTS : MargaretZavalidroga, pro s e , Blossvale, New York. Tom as Zavalidr oga, pro s e , W ebb, New York.-2-

FO R A PP EL LE ES : Bartl e J. Go rm an , G orm an , W asz kie wi cz, Go rm an& S chm idt , Utica, NY, for

Ap pe lle e D av id L aP lan te . Christopher B. Weldon and Darren P. Renner, Keidel , W eldon & Cunningham, LL P, White Plai ns, NY, for Ap pe lle e Jo sep h S

. C ote . Michael P. Coll ins, Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, New York, NY; John G. McGowan, Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Syracuse, NY, for

Ap pe lle es D or is M

. K elley a nd Ja mes E. K

elley . Ma tt he w D. Guma er , S ug arman, Wal la ce , M an nh ei m & Schoenwald, LLP, Syracuse, NY, for Ap pe lle e Greg

or y J. Am oros o . Carter H. Stri ckland, Mackenz ie Hughes LLP, Syracuse, NY, for Ap pe lle e T ow n o f A nn svi lle
. UP ON DU E C ON SI DE RA TI ON , it is her eby ORDERED , ADJUDGED , AND DECRE ED that th e D istric t C ourt’ s ju dg m ent is AFFIRMED
. Plaintiffs-Appella nts Margar et and Tomas Zavalidroga, pro s e , a pp eal fr om

the Jan uary 19, 2010 Order of the United Stat es Distri ct Court for the Nort hern Distri ct of New York (Hurd, J. ) di sm iss ingthe Zava lid rog as’ Fi rst

Am en ded

Co m pla int . A ft er the Zava lin dro ga s’ n eig hb ors
su cce ssf ull y s ue d in

state c ourt f

or r ights t o a

po nd an d a dja cent pr op erty, the Zava lin dro ga s bro ug ht t he curre nt f

ed era l ac tio n a ga ins t th eir ne igh bo rs, the ir o wn

an d th eir ne igh bo rs’ attorneys in the sta te court a ction, two sta te court j udges, a Sheriff’s deputy, and t he Town of Anns vil le, all eg inga “s tat e-s po ns ore d s ch em e” t o c onve y th e Z av ali nd rog as’ pro pe rtyto t

he ir
ne igh bo rs. Th e Z av ali nd

rog as r eq ue st t hat w e o ve rturn t

he Di str ict

Co urt ’s d ism iss al o f t

he ir
co m pla int . In ad dit ion , D ef

en dant- Ap pe lle e th e T own o f Ann sv ill e m ov es t o d ism iss the ap pe al
onth e b as is th atth e Z av al idro ga s aba nd on edonap pe al th ei r c la ims ag ai ns t t he To wn. We
ass um e th e p art ies ’ f

am ili ari ty w iththe un de rly ingfa cts , p roc ed ura l hi sto ry, an d is su es p res ented-3-

on ap pe al. As a p rel im inary m att er, we de nythe Zava lid rog as’ m oti on

fo r th e re cu sal of

all thr ee jud ge s o n th is p an el. Ti tle 28 of the Un ite d S tat es C od e, Se cti on 45 5, lis ts t

he cir cum stanc es i n wh ich a ju dg e m

us t di sq ua lif y h ers elf . N ot o ne of

the cir cum stanc es i s p res ent he re. Un de r Section 455(a) a judge must disqualify herse lf if her “impartialit y might reasonably be qu est ion ed .” Th is p an el’ s im parti ali ty c anno t re aso na

bly be qu est ion ed . T he Zava lid rog as all eg e th at Jud ge Po ole r kn ow s o f o ne of the de fe nd ants, wh o is a S yra cu se atto rne y; t he Ne w York judges who heard the earlie r state court act ion; and the di strictcourt judge be low. Appellants have alleged no r elations hip between any of the judge s on this panel and a defendant or p ers on co nn ect ed

to t his cas e th at w ou ld c au se any on e to rea so na bly qu est ion thi s p an el’ s impartiality. Se e U

nited Sta tes v. Pi tera , 5 F. 3d

62 4, 62 6 (2 d C ir. 19 93 ) (d ef ini ngstand ard

un de r Se cti on 45 5(a )). Further, underSection 455(b) , Appellants al lege no facts re garding “per sonal bias or prejudice ” concerning aparty or per sonal knowledge of the event s in dispute . 28 U.S.C. § 4 55 (b) (1) . N or d id anym em be r of thi s p an el s erv e as a lawy er i n th is m att er o r pr act ice law wi th a lawye r who wa s li tig ati ngthi s m att er. § 4 55 (b) (2) . N or d id anym em be r of thi s p an el, while servi ng as a government employee, participa te in thi s matter as counsel, a dvisor, or wi tne ss o r expre ss an o pin ion ab out it s m eri ts. § 4 55 (b) (3) . N or d o anyof the pane l m em

be rs have a f am ilyrel ati on sh ip o r f

inanc ial int ere st o n whic h h is o r he r im parti ali ty m ight re aso na

bly be questioned. § 455( b)(4), (b) (5). La stl y, we have a d

uty to o ur f ell owpane l m em

be rs, the Co urt

at l arg e, an d th e p ub lic to not casuall y recuse ours elves when a part y makes general and unsupporte d allegat ions about our-4-

im parti ali ty. W e d eny th e Z av ali dro ga s’ m oti on see kin g re cu sal
. Turning to the merits of the appeal, we first cons ider the Town’s motion to dis miss the appeal. We find that the Zavali drogas abandoned t heir cla ims against the Town of Annsville on ap pe al. Th e Z av ali dro ga s d id n ot l ist the To wn

as a de fe nd ant in

the cap tio n o f t

he ir a pp ell ate briefs; they r eferred to the Town as a “former Def endant[]”; and they did notraise any arguments on appeal rel ating to t he Town. Se e LoSacco v. City of M iddletown , 71 F.3d 88, 92- 93 (2d Cir. 1995) (findi ng that iss ues not rai sed in pro s e bri ef we re a band on ed ). T he To wn ’s motion to dismiss the appeal is de nied as moot. As to t he oth er a pp ell ees , th is C ourt r ev iew s de novo a distri ct court de cision dis missing a complaint pursuant to Fede ral Rule of Civil Proc edure 12(b)( 1) or (b)( 6). See Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons , 4 70 F. 3d 47 1, 47 4 (2 d C ir. 20 06 ) (R ule 12 (b) (1) ); Ch am be rs v . T im e Wa rn er, Inc ., 28 2 F .3 d 1 47 , 1 52 (2d Ci r. 2 00 2) ( Ru le 1 2(b )(6 )). In e ach ins tan ce, thi s C ourt “ co ns tru [e s] the co m pla int lib era lly , a cce pti ngall fa ctu al a lle gatio ns in t he co m pla int as t rue , and drawi ngall
rea so na ble inf ere nc es i n th e p lai nti ff

’s f av or. ” Ch am be rs , 2 82 F. 3d at 1 52 ; see also Trie stman , 470 F.3d at 474. A districtcourt may dismiss a com plaintsu a s

po nte fo r f

ail ure to s tat e a c lai m , s o lo ngas the plaint iff is given notice a nd an opportunit y to be heard. Wac htler v . C ou nty of H erk im er , 35 F.3d 77, 82 (2d Cir. 1994). Furthe r, we may “aff irm a decision on any grounds s upported in t he
rec ord , e ve n if

it i s n ot o ne on

wh ich the tri al c ourt r eli ed .” Thyroff v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. , 460 F.3d 400, 405 (2d Cir. 2006). W e af fi rm the dis tri ct c ourt’ s d ism iss al o f t he co m pla int be cau se, ev enwh enlib era lly
co ns tru ed , th e co m

pla int fa ile d to ple ad

“en ou ghfa cts to s tat e a c lai m to r eli ef that is pla

us ibl e-5-

on its fa ce. ” Be ll A tla nti c C or p. v. Tw om bly , 5 50 U. S. 54 4, 57 0 (2 00 7). A c lai m is f aci all y pla us ibl e whe n th e p lai nti ff

“p lea ds fa ctu al c ontent th at a llo ws the co urt to d rawthe rea so na

ble inf ere nc e th at the de fe nd ant is lia ble fo r th e m isc on du ct a lle ge d. ” Ashcroft v. I qbal , 1 29 S. Ct
. 1937, 1949 (2009). Th e Z av ali dro ga s d id n ot p lea d s uf fi cie nt f act s to state a

pla us ibl e cl aim

fo r re lie f u

nd er 42 U. S. C. § 1 98 1. Th e Z av ali dro ga s’ a lle gatio ns of dis cri m inator

y intent w ere wh oll y conclusory. Se e Mian v. Donaldson, Lufki n & Jenrett e Sec. Corp. , 7 F.3d 1085, 1087-88 (2d Cir. 1993) (finding al legations were insufficient t o state a c laim under § 1981 where plaint iff fa ile d to “o ff

er m ore than c on clu so ry a lle gatio ns that he wa s d isc rim inated ag ain st b eca

us e o f h is
rac e”)
. Further, the Zavalidrogas failed to sta te a clai m under 42 U.S.C . § 1983 against t he Zava lid rog as’ ne igh

bo rs and the att orn ey s invo lve d in the state l iti gatio n. Al tho ug h p riv ate act ors are lia

ble un de r S ect ion

19 83 if the y c on sp ire d w ithstate o ff ici als , to state a

cla im ba sed on “a secti on 1983 conspiracy t heory, the complaint must allege fact s demonstrating thatthe pri vate e nti ty a cte d in

co nc ert wi th t he state a cto r to co mm it an unc on sti tut ion al a ct. ” Sp ea r v. To wn of W

est Ha rtf or d, 9 54 F. 2d

63 , 6 8 (2 d C ir. 19 92 ). T he Zava lid rog as’ va gu e co ns pir acy allegat ions do not meet this st andard. See Ciambriello v . County of Nassau , 292 F.3d 307, 324 (2d Ci r. 2 00 2) ( “Am ere ly c on clu so ry a lle gatio n th at a pri vate e nti ty a cte d in

co nc ert wi th a state act or d oe s n ot s uf

fi ce t o s tat e a § 19 83 cla im agai ns t th e p riv ate entity” ); seeals o S om me r v. Dixon , 709 F.2d 173, 175 (2d Cir. 1983) (“A complaint cont aining only conc lusory, vague, or general al legations of conspiracy to depr ive a person of const itutiona l rights cannot withst and a
m oti on to d ism iss ”). Furth er, altho ug h D av id L aP lante i s a s tat e ac tor , th e al leg ati on s ag ain st-6-

him did not state a const itutiona l deprivat ion. Nor did the Zavali drogas stat e a claim under the Racket eer Influence a nd Corrupt Organizati ons Act. A plainti ff alleging a civil RICO violation must allege: “(1) thatthe defendant (2) thr ough the comm ission of two or more acts (3) constitut ing a ‘patt ern’ (4) of ‘racket eering act ivity’ ( 5) direct ly or indir ectly inve sts in, or maintains an intere st in, or partici pates in ( 6) an ‘ente rprise’ (7) the ac tiviti es of which affect interst ate or foreign
co mm erc e. ” Moss v. Mor ga n S tan ley , In c. , 7 19 F. 2d

5, 17 (2d Ci r. 1 98 3). Th e Z av ali dro ga s failed to all ege sufficient facts cons tituti ng a pattern of racketeeri ng activit y. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 1 96 1(1 ) (d ef

ini ng“ra ck ete eri ngact ivi ty” ). In sum, the Zavalidrogas’ First Amended Com plaint st ated no federal c laims for relief. Further, the DistrictCourt did not err in denying t he Zavalidroga s, pro s e lit igants , an opportunity t o file another a mended com plaint. Alt hough a distri ct court ge nerally s hould not dis m iss a pro s e co m

pla int wi tho ut g rantin g th e p lai nti ff leave to am en d, dis m iss al i s ap pro pri ate if leave to amend would be futile. See Cuoco v. Morit sugu , 2 22 F. 3d

99 , 1 12 (2d

Ci r. 2 00 0). He re, leave to am en d w ou ld b e f uti le b eca us e n ot e ve n “ a li be ral rea din g o f t he co m pla int giv es
any in dic ati on

that a v ali d c lai m

m ight be stated .” Id. (up ho ldi ngde nia l of leave to r ep lea d be cau se c om

pla int , e ve n whe n re ad

lib era lly , d id n ot “ su gg est [] that th e p lai nti ff ha s a c lai m

that sh e h as i na de qu ate ly o r in art fu llyple ad ed an d th at s he sh ou ld t

he ref ore be giv ena ch an ce t o reframe”). Fi na lly , b eca

us e th e D istric t C ourt p rop erl y d ism iss ed all cla im s o ve r whic h it

ha d ori gin al j uri sd ict ion , th e D istric t C ourt d id n ot e rr b y d ecl ini ngto e xe rci se s up ple m ental jurisdi ction over t he Zavalidroga s’ stat e law legal malpract ice clai m. Se e 28 U.S.C. §-7- SA O- RH 1367(c)(3)
. W e have consider ed all of the Zaval idrogas’ a rguments and find them to be without
m eri t. A cco rdi ng ly, the jud gm ent of the Di str ict

Co urt is AFFIRMED . The Town of Anns vil le’ s m oti on

to d ism iss the ap pe al i s DENIED as moot.

FO R T HE CO URT: Cathe rin e O ’H ag anW olf e, Cl erk