### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Jul y 08, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L 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. 04- 15079 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 0 2 8 6 - CV- J - 2 5 - HTS A N D R E W P . M O O R E , I I , a n in d iv id u a l, P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s J O H N E . P O T T E R , a n d s u c c e s s o r s , o f f ic ia lly , M A R S H A H A R R I S O N , in d iv id u a lly , e t a l., 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 orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 8, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A nd re w P . M oo re , II , proceedi ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s order g r a n tin g th e d e f

e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n s to d is m is s h is s e c o n d a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. A2

U . S . P os t a l S e rvi c e e m pl oy e e , M oor e ha s a l l e ge d tha tappe l l e e s e nga ge d i n al i t a ny of c r i m i na l a c t s , c ons pi r a c i e s a nd vi ol a t i ons of hi s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s , a l l a r i s i ng ou tof a w orkers ’ com pensat i on di sput e. M oo re al so appeal s var i ou s di sc ov ery or de r s a nd the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of hi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on. B e c aus e w e f i nd M o o r e ’s a r g u m e n ts w ith o u t m e r it, w e a f f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. I . D is m is s a l o f

C o m p la in t f

o r F a ilu r e t o S t a t e a C la im M o o r e a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in d is m is s in g h is c o m p la in t. H is se ven-coun t , se cond am ended com pl ai ntal l eged: (1) vi ol at i on s of the R ac ket ee r I n f lu e n c e d a n d C o rru p t O r g a n iz a tio n s A c t ( “R I C O ” ) , 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 6 1 e t s e q ., ( C ount s O ne a nd T w o) ; ( 2) ac l a i m f orf a l s e l i ghti nva s i on of

pr i va c y , ( C ount T hr e e ) ; ( 3) aB i ve ns a c t i on f orvi ol a t i ons of

hi s r i ght s unde rthe F i r s t , F i f th, a nd N i nth A m e ndm e nt s , ( C ountF our ) ; ( 4) c ons pi r a c yt o obs truc tj us t i c e , i n vi ol a t i on of 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 5 ( 2 ) , ( C o u n t F iv e ) ; ( 5 ) n e g le c t to p r e v e n t th e c o n s p ir a c ya lle g e d in C ountF i ve , i n vi ol a t i on of 42 U . S . C . § 1986, ( C ountS i x) ; a nd ( 6) a i di ng a nd ab e ttin g a n d v ic a r io u s liab ility( C o u n t S e v e n ) . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l o f ac o m p la in t f

o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im , a c c e p tin g th e c o m p la in t’s a lle g a tio n s a s tru e , a n d c o n s tru in g th e m in the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the pl ai nt i ff . S pai n v . B row n & W i l l i am son T ob ac co C orp. , 363 F . 3d 1183, 1187 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . “ [ A ] c om pl a i nts houl d notbe3

di s m i s s e d f

orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m unl e s s i tappe a r s be y ond doubttha tthe p la in tif f c a n p r o v e n o s e t o f

f a c ts in s u p p o rt o f

h is c la im w h ic h w o u ld e n title h im t o r e l i e f . ” C onl e y v. G i bs on, 355 U . S . 41, 45- 46 ( 1957) . N one the l e s s , the com pl ai ntm ustm ee tm i ni m al pl ea di ng re qu i re m ent s, and “ un supp ort ed c o n c lu s io n s o f

la w o ro f

m ix e d f a c t a n d la w h a v e lo n g b e e n r e c o g n iz e d n o t to pr e ve ntaR ul e 12( b) ( 6) di s m i s s a l . ” M a r s h v. B ut l e rC ounty , A l a . , 268 F . 3d 1014, 10 36 n. 16 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( en banc). A . C ou nt

s O ne an d T

w o: R IC O A ct T h e R I C O A c t p r o v id e s ap r iv a te c iv il r e m e d yto r e c o v e rtr e b le d a m a g e s to

“ [ a ] ny pe r s on i nj ur e d i n hi s bus i ne s s orpr ope rtybyr e a s on of avi ol a t i on” of

the s u b s ta n tiv e p r o v is io n s c o n ta in e d in § 1 9 6 2 o f th e R I C O A c t. 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 6 4 ( c ) .

“ T h e fo u r el em en t s o f ci v i l R IC O l i ab i l i ty are (1 ) co n d u ct(2 ) o f an en t erp ri se ( 3 ) th r o u g h ap a tte rn ( 4 ) o f r a c k e te e r in g a c tiv ity .” L a n g f o r d v . R ite A id o f

A la ., In c. , 2 3 1 F . 3 d 1 3 0 8 , 1 3 1 1 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ). W h i l e a ci v i l R IC O p l ai n t i ff m u st s h o w th a tth e r a c k e t e e r i n g a c t i v i tyc au s e d h i m t o s u f f e ra n i n j u ry , s e e 1 8 U . S. C. § 1964( c ) , ac l a i m s t e m m i ng f r om “ pe r s ona l i nj ury , orpe c uni a ryl os s e s r e s ul t i ng fr om pers on al i nj ury” i s “ no tcogn i zabl e und erR IC O . ” P i l ki ng t on v. U ni t ed A i r l i ne s , 112 F . 3d 1532, 1536 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ; s e e a l s o G r oga n v. P l a tt , 835 F . 2d 8 4 4 , 8 4 7 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 8 8 ) (“ In o u r v i ew , th e o rd i n ary m ean i n g o f th e p h rase4

‘ i nj ur e d i n hi s bus i ne s s orpr ope rty ’ e xc l ude s pe r s ona l i nj ur i e s , i nc l udi ng the pe c uni a ry l os s e s the r e f

r om . ” ) . F urthe rm or e , w e ha ve he l d tha tpl a i nt i f f s “ c a nnot r e c ove runde rR I C O f

orthos e pe c uni a ryl os s e s tha ta r e m os tpr ope r l yunde r s t ood a s pa rtof ape r s ona l i nj ury c l a i m . ” G r oga n, 835 F . 2d a t848. B . C ou ntT

hree : Fal se L i gh t Invasi on of

P ri vacy F l or i dal a w r e c ogni z e s ac l a i m f orf a l s e l i ghti nva s i on of

pr i va c yunde rthe t ortof i nv as i on of pri vacy . S ee A gency f or H ea l th C ar e A dm i n. v. A ss oci at ed I ndus . of F l a . , I nc . , 678 S o. 2d 1239, 1252 n. 20 ( F l a . 1996) ( i de nt i f y i ng “ f a l s e l i ght i n the pu bl i c e ye – p ub l i ca t i on of fa ct s w hi ch pl ac e apers on i n a fa l se l i gh teven though the f

a c t s the m s e l ve s m a y notbe de f a m a t ory , ” a s one of

the “ f ourtype s of w r o n g f u l c o n d u c t” th a t c a n b e r e m e d ie d b ya n a c tio n f o rin v a s io n o f

p r iv a c y ) . A p e r s o n w ill b e h e ld liab le f o rf a ls e lig h t in v a s io n o f

p r iv a c yif

“( a ) th e f

a ls e lig h t in w hi c h the othe rw a s pl a c e d w oul d be hi ghl yof f e ns i ve t o ar e a s onabl e pe r s on, a nd ( b) the a c t orha d know l e dge of ora c t e d i n r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d a s t o the f a l s i tyof the pu bl i ci ze d m att erand the fa l se l i gh ti n w hi ch the other w ou l d b e pl ac ed. ” S e e R e s t a t e m e nt( S e c ond) of T ort s § 652E . U nde rF l or i dal a w thi s “ t ortof i nva s i on of

pr i va c y m us tbe a c c om pa ni e d bypubl i c a t i on t o the publ i c i n ge ne r a l or t o al a r ge num be rof

pe r s ons . ” S t e e l e v. O f

f s hor e S hi pbui l di ng, I nc . , 867 F . 2d 1 3 1 1 , 1 3 1 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) .5

C . C o u n t Fo u r : B iv e n s c la im I n B i ve ns v. S i x U nknow n N a m e d A ge nt s of F e d. B ur e au of

N a r c ot i c s , the S up re m e C ou rtprov i ded for the po ss i bi l i ty of acause of a ct i on for m on et ary dam ages agai nstfe dera l offi ci al s i n thei r i nd i vi du al capaci t i es for avi ol at i on of a f e d e r a l c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t . 4 0 3 U . S. 3 8 8 , 3 9 5 - 9 7 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . H o w e v e r , th e Su p r e me C o u rth as h el d th ata fed eral em p l o yee can n o tm ai n t ai n a cau se o f act i o n ag ai n st h is s u p e rv is o rf

o rv io la tio n s o f

h is F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts , n o tin g th a t th e C iv il S erv i ce R efo rm A ct(C S R A ) est ab l i sh ed a rem ed y fo r fed eral em p l o yees’ e m pl oy m e nt - r e l a t e d c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m s . B us h v. L uc a s , 462 U . S . 367, 385- 90, ( 1983) ; s e e a l s o W e l l s v. F e de r a l A vi a t i on A dm i ni s tr a t i on, 755 F . 2d 804, 809- 10 ( 11th C i r . 1985) ( appl y i ng s a m e a na l y s i s i n the c ont e xtof aF i f th A m e ndm e ntdue pr oc e s s c ha l l e nge ) ; S t e phe ns v. D e p’ tof H e a l th a nd H um a n S e rvs . , 901 F . 2d 1571, 1577 ( 11th C i r . 1990) ( s t a t i ng tha t“ thi s c ourtha s r e c ogni z e d tha tthe com prehensi ve st atut ory s chem e e st abl i shed by C on gres s r el at i ng t o federa l e m pl oy m e nt( C S R A ) pr e c l ude s the m a i nt e na nc e of j ob- r e l a t e d B i ve ns a c t i ons by fe dera l em pl oyee s. ”) . D . C ou nt

s Fi ve an d S i

x: C on spi racyto O bstruct Just i ce I n r e le v a n t p a rt, 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 5 ( 2 ) m a k e s it av io la tio n if tw o orm or e pe r s ons i n a nyS t a t e orT e rr i t oryc ons pi r e t o de t e r , by f or c e , i nt i m i da t i on, orthr e a t , a nypa rtyorw i tne s s i n a nyc ourtof the6

U ni t e d S t a t e s f

r om a tt e ndi ng s uc h c ourt , orf r om t e s t i f

y i ng t o a ny m att erpend i ng there i n, fr ee l y, ful l y, and truthful l y, or t o i nj ure s uch p arty o r w i tn ess i n h i s p erso n o r p ro p erty o n acco u n to f h i s h av i n g so a tte n d e d o rte s tif

ie d . . . . 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 5 ( 2 ) . S e c tio n 1 9 8 6 p r o v id e s , in r e le v a n t p a rt, E ve ry pe r s on w ho, ha vi ng know l e dge tha tanyof the w r ongs conspi re d t o b e don e, and m ent i on ed i n sec t i on 19 85 of thi s t i t l e, ar e ab o u t to b e c o m m itte d , a n d h a v in g p o w e rto p r e v e n t o ra id in p r e v e n tin g th e c o m m is s io n o f th e s a m e , n e g le c ts o rr e f u s e s s o to d o , if s u c h w r o n g f

u l a c t b e c o m m itte d , s h a ll b e liab le to th e p a rty in ju r e d . . . . 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 6 . T h e el em en t s o f a co n sp i racy cl ai m u n d er § 1 9 8 5 (2 ) are: (1 ) a co n sp i racy; ( 2) t o de t e raw i tne s s by f or c e , i nt i m i da t i on, orthr e a tf r om a tt e ndi ng ort e s t i f

y i ng be f or e aU ni t e d S t a t e s c ourt ; ( 3) tha tr e s ul t s i n i nj uryt o the pl a i nt i f f . M or a s tv. L a nc e , 807 F . 2d 926, 929- 30 ( 11th C i r . 1987) . “ [ A ] § 1986 a c t i on i s pr e di c a t e d on as u c c e s s f

u l c o n s p ir a c y a c tio n u n d e r§ 1 9 8 5 .” I d . a t 9 3 0 . E . C o u n t Se v e n : V

ic a r io u s L ia b ility U nde rF l or i dal aw , “ vi c a r i ous l i abi l i tyi nvol ve s the i m pos i t i on of l i abi l i tyon o n e p e r s o n f

o rth e a c tio n ab le c o n d u c t o f a n o th e r , b a s e d s o le lyo n ar e la tio n s h ip betw ee n the tw o p er sons. ” N at i on al R . R . P as se ng erC orp. v. R ou ntre e T ranspo rt a n d R ig g in g , I n c ., 2 8 6 F .3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 6 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . F. Mo o r e ’s C la i ms7

U po n revi ew of the ent i re re cord, i ncl ud i ng M oo re ’ s s ec on d am ended com pl ai nt , the defendant s’ m ot i on s t o d i sm i ss , and the part i es ’ bri ef s, w e hol d that th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtd i d n o te rri n d i s mi s s i n g th e c o mp l a i n tp u r s u a n tt o Fe d . R. Ci v . P. 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) f

o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im . T h r o u g h o u t h is c o m p la in t, M o o r e f a ile d to al l ege f ac t s r em ot el y s uffi ci entt o sup po rtthe neces saryel em ent s, ou t l i ned abo ve, f ora ny of hi s c l a i m s . A c c or di ngl y , w e a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rgr a nt i ng the d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n s to d is m is s M o o r e ’s s e c o n d a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. II . D i sc ov er y O rd er s M oor e a r gue s tha t( 1) the m a gi s tr a t e j udge e rr e d w he n he gr a nt e d the d efen d an t s’ j o i n tm o t i o n fo r an en l arg em en to f t i m e t o resp o n d t o d i sco v ery; (2) the m agi stra t e e rr ed w hen h e deni ed M oo re ’ s m ot i on for aprot ec t i ve order c ove r i ng hi s w i f

e ’ s de pos i t i on; ( 3) the di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d w he n i tgr a nt e d the d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n f

o ras ta y o f

d is c o v e ry ; a n d ( 4 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d w h e n it s tru c kh is m o tio n f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. W e r e vi e w “ the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s c ove ryrul i ngs . . . f ora n abus e of di sc re t i on . ” C l i ff

v. P ay co G en. A m . C re di t s, Inc. , 36 3 F . 3d 11 13 , 11 21 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) . I n g e n e r a l, d is tr ic t c o u rts h a v e “b r o a d d is c r e tio n in d e c id in g h o w b e s t to m a na ge the c a s e s be f

or e the m . ” C huda s a m av. M a z daM ot orC orp. , 123 F . 3d 13 53 , 13 66 (11th C i r. 19 97 ).8

A . E n la rg em en t

o f T i m e to R esp o n d

to D isco very P u r s u a n t to F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 ( b ) , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt, “f o rc au s e s h o w n ,” m a y in i t s d i scret i o n o rd er an ex t en si o n o f t i m e t o co m p l y w i th a req u i red acti f a req u est

“ i s m a de be f

or e the e xpi r a t i on of

the pe r i od or i gi na l l ypr e s c r i be d. ” W e a c c or d the di s tr i c tc ourt“ br oa d di s c r e t i on” ove rpr e - tr i a l m a tt e r s s uc h a s di s c ove rya nd s c he dul i ng. S e e J ohns on v. B d. of R e ge nt s of

U ni v. of G a . , 263 F . 3d 1234, 1269 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . B . P rotec t i ve O rder U p o n m o tio n b y ap a rty , a n d f o rg o o d c au s e s h o w n , ad is tr ic t c o u rt c a n lim it di s c ove ry a nd “ m a ke a ny or de rw hi c h j us t i c e r e qui r e s t o pr ot e c tapa rtyorpe r s on fr om anno yance, em barr as sm ent , op pres si on , or un du e burden o r e xp ense . . . . ” F e d . R . C iv . P . 2 6 ( c ) . C . Stayof

D is c ov e r

yand P r oc e e di ngs A s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt n o te d , w e h a v e in s tru c te d th a t: F ac i al chal l enges t o the l egal suff i ci encyof a c l ai m or defe nse, such as a m ot i on t o d i sm i ss base d o n fai l ure t o st at e acl ai m for r el i ef , s h o u ld . . . b e r e s o lv e d b e f o r e d is c o v e ryb e g in s . S u c h ad is p u te al w ay s pre se nt s apu re l y l egal qu es t i on ; there ar e no i ss ues of f ac t be c aus e the a l l e ga t i ons c ont a i ne d i n the pl e a di ng a r e pr e s um e d t o be true . T he r e f

or e , ne i the rthe pa rt i e s northe c ourtha ve a nyne e d f or di s c ove ry be f

or e the c ourtrul e s on the m ot i on. C hu dasa m a, 12 3 F . 3d at13 67 (f oo tno t e and ci t at i on om i tt ed). W e f urther9

e xpl a i ne d tha tde l a y i ng arul i ng on the m ot i on t o di s m i s s “ e nc our a ge s abus i ve di sc ov ery and , i f the courtul t i m at el y di sm i ss es the cl ai m , i m po se s unn ec es sary c os t s , ” a nd a dvi s e d tha t“ a ny l e ga l l yuns upport e d c l a i m tha tw oul d undul ye nl a r ge th e s c o p e o f

d is c o v e ry s h o u ld b e e lim in a te d b e f o r e th e d is c o v e rys ta g e , if p o s s ib le .” I d . a t 1 3 6 8 ( f o o tn o te o m itte d ) . D . Mo o r e ’s A r

g u m e n ts A f t e rthe di s tr i c tc ourti m pos e d as t a yon di s c ove rya nd a l l othe rpr oc e e di ngs pe ndi ng the r e s ol ut i on of the m ot i ons t o di s m i s s , M oor e f i l e d am ot i on f

or s um m a ry j udgm e nt . T he r e a f t e r , the di s tr i c tc ourts truc k M oor e ’ s m ot i on f or s um m a ry j udgm e nt , a s i tw a s f i l e d i n vi ol a t i on of

the s t a y . W e f

i nd no e rr ori n the di stri ctcourt ’ s i m po si t i on of a s t ay , no r i n i t s ordert o stri ke M oo re ’ s s um m ary j udgm e ntm ot i on. M oreover, up on re vi ew of the re cord and the re l evantdi sc ov ery- re l at ed orders t o w hi ch M oo re obj ec t s, w e hol d thatnei ther the m agi stra t e nor the di stri ct courterre d. F i rs t , si nce the di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed the com pl ai ntun der F e d. R . C i v. P . 12( b) ( 6) , i t s di s c ove ryrul i ngs a r e m oot . S e c ond, appl y i ng the s ta n d a r d s d is c u s s e d ab o v e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its b r o a d d is c r e tio n . A cco rd i n g l y, w e affi rm as t o al l o f i t s o rd ers.

I I I . M o t i o n f

o r R e l i e f f r o m J udg m e nt10

W e r e vi e w “ the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rde ny i ng r e l i e f unde rR ul e 60( b) f

or abus e of di s c r e t i on. ” W a dde l l v. H e ndryC ountyS he r i f f’ s O f f i c e , 329 F . 3d 1300, 1309 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . W e ha ve e xpl a i ne d: T o o b ta in r e lie f

f r o m af in a l ju d g m e n t b a s e d u p o n f r au d u n d e rR u le 60( b) ( 3) , the m ovi ng pa rty m us tpr ove by c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e tha tthe a dve r s e pa rtyobt a i ne d the ve r di c tthr ough f r aud, m i srep resen t at i o n s, o r o th er m i sco n d u ct . T h e m o v i n g p arty m u stal so d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e c o n d u c t p r e v e n te d th e m f r o m f u llyp r e s e n tin g h is ca se . I d . ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . M oor e ’ s a l l e ga t i ons of

f r aud a r e w i thoutm e r i t , a nd ar e f a rf r om c l e a ra nd conv i nci ng evi dence thatthe j ud gm entagai nstM oo re w as ob t ai ned b y f raud . S ee W addel l , 32 9 F . 3d at13 09 . M oreover, M oo re di d n otshow thathe w as prevent ed fr om ful l y pre se nt i ng hi s c as e. S ee i d. A cc ordi ng l y, w e hol d thatthe di stri ctcourt di d note rri n de ny i ng M oor e ’ s m ot i on t o r e ope n, ori n t e rm i na t i ng hi s m ot i on f or r e l i e f f r o m j u d g me n t , a n d a f

f i rm. I V . C on c l u s i on B as ed o n th e f

o re g o in g , w e a ff

irm th e d istrict co u rt’s d ism issa l o f M o o re ’s co m p l ai n tas w el l as i t s rel at ed d i sco v ery an d p o st -j u d g m en trel i ef o rd ers. AF F I RME D.