08-2 404 -cv

Wr i g h t v . Wa t e r s i d e P l a z aLLC UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OFAP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T AM EN DE D SU M M AR Y O RD ER R UL I NGS BY S UM M ARY ORD E R DO NO T HAVE PR E CE DENTI AL EFF E CT . C I TATI O N TO SU M M ARY O RD ERS F I L ED AFT ER J A NUA R Y 1, 2007, I S P E RM I T T E D AN D I S G OVER NED BY THI S C OU RT ’ S L O C A L R U L E 3 2 .1 A ND F E D E R A L R U L E O F A PPE L L ATE P RO CED U RE 32. 1. I N A BRI EF O R O THER PAPER I N W H I CH A L I TI GAN T CI TE S A SUM M ARY O RD ER , IN E A C H P A R A G R A P H IN W HI CH A CI T AT I ON AP PE ARS , AT L EAST O N E CI TATI O N M U ST E I THER B E T O THE F E D E R A L A PPE N D I X O R BE ACC O M PAN I ED B Y T HE NOT A T I ON : “( SU M M ARY O RD ER ).” U N L ESS THE SU M M ARY O RD ER I S AVAI L ABL E I N A N EL ECTRO N I C D ATABASE W H I CH I S PU B L I C L Y ACCESSI BL E W I THO U T PAYM ENT O F F EE ( SUCH AS T HE DAT ABA SE AVA I L ABL E AT H TT P :// WWW . CA 2. U SCO U RTS . G OV / ), T HE P ART Y CI T I NG THE SUM M ARY ORD E R M UST FI L E AN D SE RVE A COPY OF T HAT SU M M ARY O RD ER TOGETH ER W I TH TH E PAPE R I N W H I CH THE SU M M ARY O RD ER I S CI TE D . I F NO C OP Y I S S E R V E D B Y R E A S ON O F THE AVAI L ABI L I TY O F THE O RD ER O N SU CH A D ATABASE , THE CI TATI O N M U ST IN CL U D E REF ERENC E T O THAT D ATABASE AN D THE D O CKET NU M BER O F THE CASE I N W H I CH THE O RD ER W AS ENTERED . At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 8 day of th Dec ember , two thousand and nine. PRES ENT: WI L FRED F EI NB ERG, J OHN M. WALKER, J R., ROBERT A. K

ATZ MANN, Circuit Judges
.

_______________________________________________ Ray mond Wright, Plaintif f-Appellant , v. No. 08-2404-c v Wat e rs idePlaza, L .L .C. (“ WPL L C” ), Wat e rs ideTe na nts As s o ci at i o n(“ W T A” ), Dav i d R o s enb er g, De fe nd an ts- Ap pe lle e s.

______________________________________________ For Appellant: RAYMOND WRI GHT, pro s e , New York, N.Y
. For Appellee s: MAGDA L . CRUZ, B elkin, Bur den, Wenig &Goldman, New York, N.Y
.2 MARGRET M. MCBURNEY, Marin Goodman, L L P, New Yor k, N.Y, DA VID R OS ENB E R G, M ar cu s R o s enb er g & D iamond L L P, New Yor k, N.Y. Appea l from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York (Chin, J .). UP ON DU E C ON SID ER AT ION , i ti s h e r e b y ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that th e jud gme nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
. Appellant Ray

mond Wright, pro s e , a

pp e a ls the dis tr ic t c ourt ' s sua sponte dis mis sa l of his complaint for f

ailure to state a

cause of ac tion. W e assume the parties’ familiarity with the
un de rl yingfa c ts, thepr oc e dura l hi sto ry of thec a se , a

nd the iss ue s o n a

pp e a l. We r e vie w the dis tr ic t c ourt ' s sua sponte dis mis sa l of a c omp la int de novo , “construing thec omp la int

lib e ra lly , a c c e pti nga ll f

a c tua l a lle g atio ns in t

he c omp la int

a s tr ue , a nd dr awi nga ll
rea sonable infe renc es in the plaintiff' s favor .” Chambers v. Time W arner, Inc
. , 282 F.3d 147, 15 2 ( 2d Cir . 2 00 2) . Ac omp la int mus t pl e a d “ e no ugh f

a c ts t o s tate a

c la im t o r e lie f t

hat is plausible on its face .” Be ll A tla nti cCor p. v . Two mb ly , 5 50 U. S. 5 44 , 5 70 (2 00 7) . A lth ou gh a ll alleg ations contained in the c omplaint are a ssumed to be true, this tenet is “ina pplicable to leg al conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct . 1937, 1949 (2009). A c laim will have “f acia l pla us ibi lity wh e n th e pla int if

f p le a ds fa c tua l c onte nt t

hat a llo ws the c ourt

to d ra w the re a so na

ble infere nce that the defe ndant is liable for the misconduct alleg ed.” Id. Her e, the district cour t properly dismiss ed Wright's c omplaint for fa ilure to state a c laim. Wright’s c omplaint alleg ed cla ims under: (1) va rious fede ral c riminal laws under Title 183

of the United States Code; (2) provisions of the Racke teer Influenc ed and Corr

upt Org anizations Act (“ RI CO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, et seq. , in c lud ingc ivi l RI CO pr ov isi on s; a nd (3 ) t he F ir st Amendment. F irst, Wright' s claims ag ainst Rosenbergwer e prope rly dismiss ed bec ause, a s the d i s tr i c tc o urtc o n c l u d e d , R o s e nb e r g ’ s a l l e g e d a c t i v i t i e s i nc o nn e c t i o n

w i thW T Aan d

W P LLC
amou nt t o n o mo retha

n p ro vid ingc ouns e l to his c lie nts and be ingc op ie d o n v ari ou s e ma ils
writt e n b y

WTAme mbe rs . Se c on d, Wri ght’ s c la ims un de r T itl e 18 , e xce pt t he c ivi l RI CO claims, failed a s a matter of law bec ause no private re medy exis ts for the c riminal violations Wright alleg ed. Se eChr

y sle r Co rp . v . B ro wn , 441 U.S. 281, 316 (1979) (notingthat the Supreme Court “ha s rar ely implied a private right of action under

a criminal statute”). Third, W ri ght ’s Fi rs tAm en dm en tcl ai mfa i l edt o s t at e acau s e o f a ct i o nb ec au s e h e h adfa i l edt o al l ege any fac tual evidenc e indicatinga nexus betwee n the conduc t of Def endants—a ll of whom are private a ctors—and state ac tion. See Coope r v. U.S. Postal Serv. , 577 F.3d 479, 491 ( 2d Cir. 2009) (holdingthat a constitutional claim ag ainst non-g overnme nt entities only lies where“ther e is a sufficie ntly

close ne x us betwee n the State and the c halleng ed ac tion of the . . . entity so that the ac tion of the latter may be fa irly treated as that of the State itself”) ( internal quotation marks omitted). Moreove r, the mer e provision of fe dera l subsidies to the De fenda nts does not transfor m their otherwise private c onduct into state ac tion. See R endell-Bak er v. Kohn , 4 57 U. S. 830, 840 (1982) ( cited in Horvath v. W estport Libr ary Ass’n , 362 F.3d 147, 152 ( 2d Cir. 2004)). F ina lly , th e dis tr ic t c ourt

c or re c tly dis mis se d Wr ight’ s c ivi l RI CO c la ims be c a us e he ha d f

a ile d to plead suff icient fa ctual alleg ations to demonstrate that the D efe ndants’ RI CO violations caused an injury to his business or property
. See Lerne r v. Flee t Bank, N.A. , 459 F.3d 273, 283 ( 2d Cir. 2006) (“ In order

to bringsuit under § 1964(c ), a pla intiff must plead (1) the defe ndant’s violation4

of [18 U.S.C .] § 1962, (2) an injury to the plaintiff’s business or pr operty , and (3) causation of the injury by the def endant’ s violation.”) (c itations and quotations omit ted; brac kets in orig inal). We have c onsidered a ll of Wright' s remainingclaims of er ror a nd deter mined them to be without merit. For the f

oreg oing r easons, the judgment of the district cour t is hereby AFF I RMED. F OR TH E CO UR T: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk By :________________________