## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 34 67

__ __ __ __ __ _

L.L. N el so n En te rp ris es , Inc .; Lau ra L. *

Nels on -Sm it h, *

*

Pl ai nt iff s/ App el la nt s, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

Co un ty of St . Lou is , Mis so ur i, *

*

Defen da nt /Ap pe ll ee, *

*

Cu rle y Hin es ; M arcu s Li pe , *

*

Defen da nt s, *

*

Ri ch ard Ro bi ns on , *

*

Defen da nt /Ap pe ll ee, *

*

Dav id Ro dr ig ue z, *

*

Defen da nt

, *

*

Gen e Ove ral l; James D. Buc kl es ; *

Lau rie Mai n; Ind ep en de nt Evi ct io n * Age nc y , LLC; J am es Sie be ls ; Pa ul Fo x, *

*

Defen da nt s/ App el le es

. *__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 22 , 20 11

Fi le d: Marc h 9 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , COLLOTO N, and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

L. L. Nels on Ent erp ris es , In c., do in g bu si ne ss as Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng Serv ic e , In c., an d it s pr in ci pa l Lau ra L. Nels on -Sm it h (co ll ect iv el y , “ Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ”)

br ou gh t ci vi l rig ht s cl ai m s un de r 42 U.S.C. §§ 19 83 an d 19 85 ag ai ns t th e Co un ty of

St

. Lou is

, s e v e r a l em

pl oyees of th e Co un ty, an d a co m pe ti to r fir m In de pe nd en t

Evi ct io n Age nc y , LLC, an d it s pr in ci pa l, Ja mes Si eb el s (co ll ect iv el y , “ IEA”). The

am en de d co m

pl ai nt al le ge d vi ol at io ns of co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s un de r th e Fi rs t, Fi fth

,

an d Fo ur te e n t h A m en dm en ts an d so ug ht da m ag es an d de cl arat or y an d in jun ct iv e

rel ie f. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e pl ai nt iff s’ am en de d co m

pl ai nt fo r fai lu re to

st at e a cl ai m ag ai ns t all bu t th ree def en da nt s, and en te red a fin al jud gm en t pu rs ua nt

to Fed eral Ru le of Civ il Pro ced ur e 54 (b ). Land lo rd s M ov in g a pp eal s. We reve rs e 1

th e di sm is sa l of Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s Fi rs t Am en dm en t ret al ia ti on cl ai m ag ai ns t

de fen da nt Lau rie Mai n, aff i r m th e di sm is sa l of al l ot he r cl ai m s, an d rem an d fo r

fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d wit ho ut pr ejud ic e th e cl ai m s ag ai ns t de fen da nt 1

Dav id Ro dr ig ue z fo r la ck of ti m el y se rv ic e. The co ur t o bs erv ed th at de fen da nt

Mar cu s Lipe ha d app eare d th ro ug h cou ns el an d th at de fen da nt Cu rle y Hin es was in

de fau lt

, bu t co nc lu de d th at a m ot io n fo r en try of de fau lt ag ai ns t bo th de fen da nt s m ay b e fu ti le in li gh t of th e co ur t’s or de r di sm is si ng th e cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e ot he r d e f e n d an ts

. On th is ba si s, th e co ur t fo un d no jus t reas on to de la y en try of f i n a l jud gm en t as to th e de fen da nt s who m ov ed su cces sf u l l y to di sm is s th e am en de d

co m pl ai nt

.

-2

-I.

The am en de d co m

pl ai nt al le ge s th e fo ll owi ng fact s. Th e St

. Lou is Co un ty

Sh eri ff’s O ffi ce has fo r de cad es pe rm it te d real es ta te own ers to hi re pri va te m ov in g

co m pa ni es li ke Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng an d IEA to re m ov e th ei r te na nt s’ pe rs on al pr op ert y

du rin g th e ex ecu ti on of ev ic ti on or de rs

. Fo r a nu m be r of y ears , de pu ty sh eri ffs Lau rie

Mai n, Hin es , Li pe , R od rig ue z, an d Ri ch a r d R o b i ns on al le ge dl y ex ecu te d an il le ga l

ki ck ba ck sc he m e in whi ch th ey fu nn el e d e v i ct io n bu si ne ss to pr iv at e m ov in g

co m pa ni es in ex ch an ge fo r cas h pa y m en ts

. Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng in it ia ll y pa rti ci pa te d

in th is “ il le ga l pa y m en ts sc he m e,” but be ga n to ex pr es s rel uc ta nc e in 20 03 an d th en

wit hd rew fro m

pa rti ci pa ti on by m id -2 00 4.

The sc he m e’s pa rti ci pa nt s im pl em en te d a writ te n sc he du l e i n Feb ru ary 2 00 4

fo r th e ex ecu ti on of ev ic ti on or de rs

. Thi s sc he du le si ng le d ou t Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng an d

li m it ed th e da y s o n w h i c h i t co ul d rece iv e ev ic ti on bu si ne ss

. Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng

co m pl ai ne d ab ou t th e sc he du le to Gen e Ove ral l, who was th en th e sh eri ff of St

. Lou is

Co un ty, Pau l Fo x, th e Co un ty’ s di rect or of jud ic ia l ad m in is tra ti on , an d ot he rs at th e

s h e r iff ’s of

fic e. Afte r Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ex ch an ge d a nu m be r of writ te n an d or a l

co m m un ic at io ns wit h th e sh eri ff’s of fic e, Mai n an n ou nc ed to m os t of th e de pu ty

sh eri ffs na m ed in th e am en de d co m pl ai nt th at sh e wou ld pu t Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ou t

of bu si ne ss

.

W it h th e co op erat io n of bo th th e de pu ti es an d th e en ti re sh eri ff’s of fic e, Mai n

al le ge dl y im

pl em en te d pr oc ed ur es an d pr act ic es th at were de si gn ed to di sa dv an ta ge

Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng

. The se ne w pr act ic es , it is al le ge d, ev en tu al ly sh ift ed a su bs ta nt ia l

po rti on of Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s bu si ne ss to IEA an d ot he r co m pe ti to rs

. Acco rd in g to

th e am en de d co m

pl ai nt

, F o x , Ove ral l, an d la te r Sh eri ff Ja m es Bu ck le s ei th er

-3

-pa rti ci pa te d in

, kn ew of

, or sh ou ld ha ve kn own of th is co ns pi racy, y et to ok no act io n

to ha lt it

.

In th e se co nd ha lf of 2 0 0 4

, La n d lo rd s Mo vi ng co nt act ed th e Uni te d St at es

Att or ne y ’s Offi ce f

o r th e East ern Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri an d rep or te d th e il le ga l

ki ck ba ck sc he m e an d al le ge d reta li at or y pr act ic es of th e sh eri ff’s of fic e. Lan dl or ds

M o vi ng co op erat ed wit h fed eral pr os ecu to rs in th e su bs eq ue nt in ve st ig at io n a n d

pr os ecu ti on of va rio us of fic ia ls

, in cl ud in g Hin e s , Li pe , Ro bi ns on , an d Ro dr ig ue z.

Lau ra Nels on -Sm it h al so te st ifi ed fo r th e pr os ecu ti on in fed eral co ur t, and al l of th e

de fen da nt s ha ve kn own fo r so m e ti m e of Lan dl or d Mo vi ng ’s ro le in th e in ve st ig at io n

an d pr os ecu ti on s. The am en de d co m pl ai nt al le ge d th at in ret al ia ti on , Mai n an d ot he rs

i n th e sh eri ff’s of

fic e “ ha ve co nt in ue d an d ev en in crea se d th e ex te nt o f t h e i r

co ns pi racy,” ta ki ng su ch m eas ur es as fo rci ng Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s cl ie nt s to “ wait

in or di na te ly” for en fo rcem en t o f th ei r ev ic ti on ord ers

.

Lan dl o r d s Mo vi ng fil ed a fo ur -co un t am en de d co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t each of th e

el ev en de fen da nt s. The fir st two co un ts ari se un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d al le ge th e

de pr iv at io n of co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. As rel ev an t he re, Co un t I al le ge s th at th e il le ga l

ki ck ba ck sc he m e vi ol at ed Lan dl or d Mo vi ng ’s rig ht s un de r th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se , Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se , an d th e Tak in gs Cl au se of th e Co ns ti tu ti on , whi le Co un t II

av ers th at ret al ia ti on ag ai ns t Land lo rd s M ov in g fo r pr ot es ti ng th e k ic kb ack sc he m e

in fri ng ed it s rig ht s to free do m of sp eech an d to pe ti ti on fo r th e red res s of gr ie va nc es

un de r th e Fi rs t an d Fo ur te en th Am en dm en ts

. Co un t III is a cl ai m fo r da m ag es un de r

42 U.S. C

. § 1 9 8 5

, al le gi ng th at th e de fen da nt s co ns pi red to ret al ia te ag ai ns t

Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng be cau se of Lau ra Nels on -Sm it h’s te st im on y in fed eral co ur t. In

th e fo ur th co un t, Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng se ek s de cl arat or y an d in jun ct iv e rel ie f “ to de fin e

reas on ab le co m

m erci al an d no nc om m erci al pu bl ic ex pe ct at io ns wit h res pe ct to ta sk s

to be pe rfo rm ed by the Sh eri ff’s o ffi ces in co nn ect io n wi th ev ic ti on ex ecu ti on s,” in

or de r to “ effe ct a reas on ab ly com pl et e red res s o f pl ai nt iff

s’ in juri es .”

-4

-The Co un ty, Ove ral l, Bu ck le s, Fo x, Ma in

, Ro bi ns on , an d IEA m ov ed to

di sm is s Lan dl or ds M o v i ng ’s am en de d co m pl ai nt

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e

m ot io ns , c on cl ud in g th at th e am en de d co m pl ai nt di d no t pl au si bl y al le ge ei th er th e

de pr iv at io n of a co n st it ut io na l rig ht or th at th e de fen da nt s de te rred Nels on -Sm it h

fro m te st ifyin g. The di st r i c t c o u r t en te red fin al jud gm en t as to th es e de fen da nt s

pu rs ua nt to Ru le 54 (b ), an d Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ap pe al s.

II.

We r e v i e w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to gr an t a m ot io n to di sm is s ,

acce pt in g th e al le ga ti on s of th e am en de d co m pl ai nt as tru e. Se e Sc hmi dt v. Des

Moi ne s Pub

. Sc hs

. , 65 5 F.3 d 81 1, 8 1 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). To su rv iv e a m ot io n to

di s mi s s , a co m

pl ai nt m us t pl ead “ en ou gh fact s to st at e a cl ai m to rel ie f th at is
pl au si bl e on it s face .” Bell Atl

. Co rp

. v. Two mbl y , 55 0 U.S. 54 4, 57 0 (2 00 7)

. Faci al
pl au si bi li ty, in tu rn , req ui res th at th e cl ai m pl ead fact s fro m whi ch a co ur t m ay “ dr aw

th e reas on ab le in fere nc e th at th e de fen da nt is li ab le fo r t he m is co nd uc t al le ge d.”

Ash cr of t v. Iq ba l , 12 9 S . Ct. 1 93 7, 1 94 9 (2 00 9) . At th e sa m e ti m e, “ [s ]peci fic fact s

are no t ne ces sa ry ; th e st at em en t ne ed on ly gi ve th e de fen da nt fai r no ti ce of wha t th e

. . . cl ai m is an d th e gr ou nd s up on whi ch it res ts .” Eri cks on v. Par du s , 55 1 U.S. 89

, 93 (2 00 7) (in te rn al qu o t a t i o n om it te d) ; se e Sw ie rk ie wi cz v. So re ma N.A.

, 53 4 U.S.

50 6, 5 12 (20 02 ).

The ess en ti al el em en ts of a co ns ti tu ti on al cla im un de r § 1 98 3 a re (1 ) th at th e

de fen da nt act e d u nd er co lo r of st at e la w, a nd (2 ) th at th e al le ge d wro ng fu l co nd uc t

de pr iv ed th e pl ai nt iff of a co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed fed eral rig ht

. Sc hmi dt v. Ci ty of

Bell a Vil la , 5 57 F.3 d 56 4, 57 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). The di st ric t c o u r t a ss um ed th e fir st

el em en t was sa ti sf

ie d, se e Mon ro e v. Pap e , 36 5 U.S. 16 7 (1 96 1)

, bu t de te rm in ed th at

t he am en de d co m

pl ai nt al le ge d no co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. W he th er Lan dl or d s

-5

-Mo vi ng ad eq ua te ly al le ge d th e de pr iv at io n of a co n s t i t u t i o n al rig ht is th e pr in ci pa l

di sp ut ed qu es ti on on ap pe al

.

A.

W e fi rs t co ns id er t he sev eral al le ga ti on s m ad e un de r Co un t I o f th e am en de d

co m pl ai nt

. Lan d l o rd s Mo vi ng rel ie s in pa rt on th e “ do ct rin e of un co ns ti tu ti on al

co nd it io ns ” to de s c r i b e i t s c la im un de r Co un t I. Thi s do ct rin e, as a ge ne ral ru le

,
pr ov id es th at alt ho ug h a St at e m ay ha ve th e p owe r to de ny a pri vi le ge alt og et he r, it

m ay no t co nd it io n th e gr an t o f s u c h a pr iv il eg e on a pr iv at e pa rty’ s su rren de r of a

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht

. Deci si on s al on g th is li ne da te to Fro st & Fro st Tr uc ki ng Co

. v.

Rai lr oa d Co mmis si on , 27 1 U.S. 58 3 ( 19 26 ), whe re th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at a

St at e co u l d no t co nd it io n a pr iv at e carr ie r’s us e of hi gh way s on is su an ce of a

cert ifi cat e an d su bm is si on to reg ul at or y co nt ro l of th e St at e, be cau se su ch reg ul at io n

vi ol at ed th e du e pr oc es s rig ht s of th e pr iv at e carr ie r u n d e r t h e Lo ch ne r -era juri sp ru de nc e th en pr ev ai li ng

. Id

. a t 5 9 3 -9 4. Mo re rece nt ly, th e Su pr em e Co ur t

ap pl ie d th e do ct r in e in th e co nt ex t of th e Tak in gs Cl au se , ex pl ai ni ng th at “ th e

go ve rn m en t m ay no t req ui re a pe rs on to gi ve up a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht —h ere th e rig ht

to rece iv e jus t co m

pe ns at io n whe n pr op ert y is ta ke n fo r pu bl ic us e—i n ex ch an ge fo r

a di sc ret io na ry be ne fit co nf erre d by th e go ve rn m en t whe re th e be ne fit ha s li tt le or no

r e l a t i o n s h ip to th e pr op ert y .” Dol an v. Ci ty of Ti ga rd

, 51 2 U.S. 37 4, 38 5 (1 99 4)

. Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s fav or ed ex am pl e is Bla ckb ur n v. Sn ow , 7 71 F.2 d 55 6 (1 st Cir

. 19 85 ), whe re th e co ur t he ld th at a St at e co ul d no t co nd it i o n a ci ti zen ’s pr iv il eg e to

vi si t he r br ot he r at a co un ty jail on su bm is si on to an un r e a s o n a b le st rip se arch th at

in fri ng ed up on th e v is it or ’s rig ht s u nd er t he Fo ur th Am en dm en t. Id

. at 5 68

.

C o ur ts an d co m

m en ta to rs ha ve wres tl ed wit h th e pa ram et ers of t h e

un co ns ti tu ti on al co nd it io ns do ct rin e, se e ge ne ra ll y Kath le en M. Su ll iv an , Unc on st it ut io na l Co nd it i o n s , 10 2 Harv

. L. Rev

. 14 13 (1 98 9)

, an d th ere is no

-6

-pr eced en t th at di rect ly ad dr es se s a sc en ari o li ke th is on e. Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng su gg es ts

th at th e cl os es t anal og ue is Roma Co ns tr uc ti on Co

. v. aRu ss o , 96 F.3 d 56 6 (1 st Ci r.

19 96 ). The di st ric t co ur t in th at cas e al lo wed th at “ [p ]erhap s a br ib ery d e man d by

m un ic ip al of

fic ia ls in or de r to faci li ta te zo ni ng , pe rm it s, a n d t h e li ke

, de pr iv es a

ci ti zen of co ns ti tu ti on al du e pr oc es s rig ht s,” bu t ru le d th at on ce th e ci ti zen vo lu nt ari ly

pa id th e b rib e, he waiv ed an y fu tu re rig ht to su e un de r § 19 83

. 90 6 F . Sup p. 7 8, 8 4
(D.R.I. 19 95 ). The co ur t of ap pe al s rev ers ed

, co nc lu di ng th at a reas on ab le jury co ul d

in fer th at th e pl ai nt iff

s were “ in no cen t vi ct im s of a cri m in al en te rp ris e,” be cau se th ei r

pa y m en ts were mad e p u r su an t to “ co erci ve ex to rti on ” an d di d no t co ns ti tu te

“ vo lu nt ary pa y m en t of br ib es .” 96 F.3 d at 57 4, 57 6. The co ur t rem an de d fo r fu rth er

pr oc eed in gs wit ho u t d i s cu ss in g wha t sp eci fic co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht th e m un ic ip al

of fic ia ls m ig ht ha ve vi ol at ed

.

Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng as se rts su m m ari ly th at a br ib ery de m an d by pu bl ic of fic ia ls

res ul ts in a co ns ti tu ti on al du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n w h e n th e br ib e is pa id , b ecau se th e

pa y m en t is “ co nt rary t o l a w

. ” It al so cl ai m s th at th e de m an d fo r br ib ery pa y m en ts

am ou nt ed to a t a ki ng of it s pr op ert y in vi ol at io n of th e Tak in gs Cl au se of th e Fi fth

Am en dm en t, as in co rp or at ed th ro ug h th e F o ur te en th

. W ha te ve r th e m eri ts of a

po ss ib le du e pr oc es s cl ai m by an in no cen t vi ct im of ex to rti on , cf

. Hud so n v. Pal mer , 46 8 U.S. 51 7, 53 3 (1 98 4)

, or a Tak in gs Cl au se cl ai m ba se d on an ob li ga ti on im po se d
by th e St at e to pa y m on ey , cf

. W

. Va

. CWP Fun d v. St ac

y , No. 11 -1 02 0, 20 11 W L

60 62 11 6, at *6 (4 th Ci r. Dec. 21

, 20 11 ), we do no t t h i n k La n dl or ds Mo vi ng can

as su m e th e m an tra of th e “ in no cen t vi ct im ” de sc rib ed in Roma Co ns tr uc ti on fo r th e

pe rio d du rin g whi ch Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng was pa y in g br ib es

. The am en de d co m pl ai nt

al le ge s th at co un ty o f

f ic ia ls refe rred bu si ne ss on ly t o th os e m ov in g co m pa ni es th at

m ad e “ il le

ga l cas h pa y m en ts ” an d were “ wi ll in g an d ab le ” to sa ti sf y th e de m an ds fo r

“ un la wf ul pa y m en ts .” Am . Com

pl . ¶¶ 20 , 24 (em

ph as es ad de d)

.

-7

-All eg at io ns in a co m pl ai nt are bi nd in g a dm is si on s, Ja cks on v. Mar io n Cn ty

. , 66 F.3d 15 1, 1 53 (7t h C ir. 1 99 5) , and a pa rty who “ wil li ng [ly] ” m ak es pa y m en ts to

th e St at e can no t m ou nt a su cces sf ul cl ai m ba se d on t h e D ue Pro ces s Cl au se or th e

Tak in gs Cl au se

. W he n a pe rs on vo lu nt ari ly su rren de rs li be rty or pr op ert y , th e St at e

ha s no t de

pr iv ed th e pe rs o n o f a co ns ti tu ti on al ly-pro te ct ed in te res t. Zi ne rmo n v.

Bur ch

, 49 4 U.S. 11 3, 11 7 n.3 (1 99 0) (“ If on ly th os e pa ti en t s w h o are co m pe te nt to

co ns en t to ad m is si on are all owe d to si gn th em se lv es in as ‘vol un ta ry ’ pa ti en ts

, th en

th ey wou ld no t be de pr iv ed of an y li be rty in te res t at al l.”) ; Lee v. Pi n e Bl u f f Sc h.

Dis t.

, 47 2 F.3 d 10 26

, 10 30 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Si m il arl y , a vo lu nt ary tra ns fer of m on ey

to th e St at e in ex ch an ge fo r refe rral s of bu si ne ss do es no t am ou nt to a ta ki ng by the

St at e. Se e Y

ee v. Ci ty of Esco nd id

o , 50 3 U.S. 51 9, 52 7 (1 99 2) (s ta ti ng th at “ th e

Tak in gs Cl au se req ui res co m pe ns at i o n i f th e go ve rn m en t au th or iz es a co mpe ll ed
ph y si cal in va si on of pr op ert y ”) (em ph as is ad de d) ; Mer id en Tr us t & Sa fe Dep os it Co

.

v. FDIC

, 62 F.3 d 44 9, 45 5 (2d Cir

. 19 95 ); McCa rt hy v. Ci ty of Cl evel an d

, 62 6 F.3d

28 0, 28 7 (6 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (Mc Keag ue , J., co nc ur rin g)

. The re is al so au th or it y ho ld in g

th at a pa rty can no t ob ta in red res s un de r § 19 83 fo r da m ag es cau se d by it s own il le ga l

act s in pa ri de li ct o wit h an ot he r, se e Dud le y v. St on ema n , 65 3 F.2 d 12 5, 12 6 (4 th Ci r.

19 81 ) (p er cu ria m ), bu t we ne ed no t ad dr es s ho w th at de fe n s e a p p l i es in a § 19 83

act io n, be cau se th e cl ai m s as pl ead ed in Co un t I si m pl y fai l on th e m eri ts

. Cf

. Pin te r

v. Dah l

, 48 6 U.S. 62 2, 63 3- 35 (1 98 8) (d es cri bi ng th e st an da rd fo r de te rm in in g whe n

th e in pa r i d el ic to de fen se ap pl ie s to a pr iv at e act io n un de r an y of th e fed eral

se cu rit ie s l aws ).

W e fu rth er co nc lu de th at Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s am en de d co m pl ai nt d oe s no t

st at e a cl ai m th at th e m ak in g of il le ga l cas h pa y m en ts i n r e s p o ns e to de m an ds of

co un ty of fic ia ls co ns ti tu te d a vi ol at io n of th e Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se

. Acco rd in g to

th e am en de d co m

pl ai nt

, whe n Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng m ad e il le ga l c a s h p ay m en ts in

ex ch an ge fo r th e refe rral of bu si n e s s , i t was tre at ed th e sa m e as al l ot he r pr iv at e

m ov in g co m

pa ni es

. A s t h e am en de d co m pl ai nt al le ge s no di ffer en ti al tre at m en t of

-8

-si m il arl y si tu at ed pe rs on s du rin g th e pe rio d whe n Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng m ad e un la wfu l

pa y m en ts

, it fai ls to s t a t e a n e q u a l pr ot ect io n cl ai m

. Se e Ko sc ie ls ki v. Ci ty of

Min ne ap ol is , 43 5 F .3d 89 8, 9 01 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6)

.

B.

Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ne xt ap pe al s th e di sm is sa l of it s Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m

u n d e r C o u nt II of th e am en de d co m pl ai nt

. Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng co nt en ds th at th e

de fen da nt s vi ol at ed th e co m pa ny’ s rig ht s un de r th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t to pe ti ti on fo r

red re s s o f g rie va nc es an d to free do m of sp eech by ret al ia ti ng ag ai ns t Lan dl or ds

Mo vi ng fo r co m

pl ai nt s th at it m ad e to th e sh eri ff an d th e d ire ct or of jud ic ia l

ad m in is tra ti on

. W e co nc lu de th at La n d l o rd s Mo vi ng ad eq ua te ly pl ead ed a Fi rs t

Am en dm en t c la im ag ai ns t de fen da nt Mai n, an d th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r of

di sm is sa l s ho ul d b e rev ers ed in pa rt.

The am en de d co m

pl ai nt al l e g e d t h at in 20 03 an d th e fir st ha lf of 20 04

, Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng “d e m on st rat ed rel uc ta nc e” to co nt in ue it s pa rti ci pa ti on in th e

il le ga l pa y m en ts sc he m e. In Feb ru a ry an d Mar ch 20 04

, it is al le ge d, th e sh eri ff’s

of fic e im pl em en te d a sc he du le fo r th e ex ecu ti on of ev ic ti on or de rs th at l i mite d th e

da y s on whi ch ev ic ti on o r d ers fo r cl ie nt s of Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng co ul d be ex ecu te d.

Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng co m pl ai ne d to Sh eri ff Ove ra l l a nd Dire ct or of Ju di ci al

Adm in is tra ti on Fo x, qu es ti on ed th e m ot iv at io n fo r th e sc he du le

, an d as se rte d th at th e

sc he du le di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng wit ho ut jus ti fic at io n.

Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng as se rts th at af t e r a nu m

be r of co m

m un ic at io ns to th e

sh eri ff’s o f

f i c e , Mai n an no un ced to m os t of th e ot he r de pu ty sh eri ffs na m ed in th e

am en de d c om

pl ai nt th at “ sh e was go in g t o p ut Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ou t o f bu si ne ss ,”

an d th at sh e im

pl em en te d t w o p art ic ul ar pr oc ed ur es th at were de si gn ed to

di sa dv an ta ge Lan dl o r d s M o v i ng

. The fir st was “ th e m ai nt en an ce of a de li be rat el y

-9

-an d in vi di ou sl y di sc riminat or y li st of av ai la b l e pr iv at e m ov in g co m pa ni es ” th at
pl aced Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng at th e bo tt om an d IEA at th e to p. The am en de d co m pl ai nt

al le ge s th at whe n real pr op ert y own ers wit h ev ic ti on or de rs as ke d Mai n to refe r th em

to a pr iv at e m ov in g co m

pa ny th at co ul d as si st wit h th e ev ic ti on , sh e read th e na m es

on he r refe rral li st fro m to p to bo tt om , “ in te nd in g to en ab le an d to en co ur ag e” th e

pr op ert y own er t o c ho os e IEA or an y pr iv at e m ov er ot he r th an Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng

. The se co nd pr act ic e was to fo rewar n th os e te na nt s who res id ed in pr op ert y own ed by

cl ie nt s of Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng th at th e te na nt s w e r e su bjec t to ev ic ti on , an d to

en co ur ag e th em to va cat e th e pr em is es im m ed ia te ly be fo re th e da te of ev ic ti on

. The

al le ge d pu rp os e of th is pr act ic e was to di sa dv an ta ge Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s bu si ne ss

. The am en de d co m

pl ai nt as se rts th at th es e pr oc ed ur es , “ in co m bi na ti on wit h al l ot he r

di sc riminat or y an d ret al ia to ry pr act ic es an d pr oc ed ur es ,” sh ift ed a su bs ta nt ia l po rti on

of Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s lo ng ti m e cl ie nt el e to IEA or ot he r m ov ers , an d in hi bi te d

su bs ta nt ia ll y

th e g ro wth of Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s bu si ne ss

.

To es ta bl is h a § 19 83 cl ai m fo r ret al ia ti on in vi ol at io n of th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t,

a p l a i n ti ff m

us t al le ge (1 ) th at it en ga ge d in a pr ot ect ed act iv it y , (2 ) th at t h e

de fen da nt s res po nd ed wit h ad ve r s e a c ti on th at wou ld “ ch il l a pe rs on of or di na ry

fir m ne ss ” fro m co nt in ui ng in th e act iv it y , a nd (3 ) th at “ th e ad ve rs e act io n was

m ot iv at ed at le as t in pa rt by th e ex erci se of th e pr ot ect ed act iv it y .” Revel s v. Vin cen z , 38 2 F.3 d 87 0, 87 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). W e th in k t ha t Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng pl ead ed th es e

el em en ts ad eq ua te ly to s ur vi ve a m ot io n t o d is m is s o n i ts cla im ag ai ns t M ai n.

Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng al le ge d th at it en ga ge d in pr ot ect ed act iv it y by pe ti ti on in g

th e sh eri ff and dir ec tor of

jud ic ia l ad m in is tra ti on , an d by ex pr es si ng it s di ss at is fact io n

wit h th e sc he du le im

po se d by th e sh eri ff’s of fic e. The d e f

e n d a n ts co un te r th at

Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s co m pl ai nt s co nc ern ed on ly it s pr iv at e in te r e s t s an d di d no t

in vo lv e a m at te r of “ pu bl ic co nc ern ,” su ch th at th e co m pl ai nt s were no t pr ot ect ed

act iv it y

. W he n th e go v ern m en t ta ke s ad ve rs e act io n ag ai ns t a pu bl ic em pl oyee, an

-1 0-ind ep en de nt cont ract or , or an ot he r act or wit h who m th e go ve rn m en t ha s a co m pa rable

pr e-ex is ti ng co m

m erci al rel at io ns hi p, th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t is im pl ic at ed on ly whe n

th e sp eech or pe ti ti on th at m ot iv at ed th e ret al ia ti on in vo lv es m at te rs of pu bl ic

co nc ern

. Se e Co nn ic k v. Myer s , 46 1 U.S. 13 8, 14 2 (1 98 3) ; Bd. of Cn ty

. Co mm’rs v.

Umbeh r , 51 8 U.S. 66 8, 67 8 (1 99 6) ; O’Har e Tr uc k Se rv

., In c. v. Ci ty of No rt h l a ke

, 51 8 U.S. 71 2, 72 1- 22 (1 99 6)

. Oth erwi se , “ a fed eral co ur t is no t th e ap pr op ria te fo ru m

in whi ch to rev ie w th e wis do m of a pe rs on ne l de ci si on ta ke n by a pu bl ic ag en cy

a l le ge dl y in reac ti on to th e em pl oyee’s be ha vi or ,” Co nn ic k

, 46 1 U.S. at 14 7, o r a

co m pa rab le de ci si on m ad e wit h res pe ct to a co nt ract or

. Umbeh r , 51 8 U.S. at 67 7- 78

. The de fen da nt s ar gu e th at th e sa m e st an da rd sh ou ld ap pl y to Land lo rd s M ov in g.

In co ns id eri ng whe th er th e “ pu bl ic co nc ern te st ” ap pl ie s to a ret al ia ti on cl ai m , th is co ur t ha s di st in gu is he d be twee n th e go ve rn m en t’s ro le as em pl oyer or co nt ract or

an d th e go ve rn m en t’s ro le as so ve rei gn

. Se e He r i t a g e C o ns tr uc to rs , I nc . v . C it y of

Gre en wo o d

, 5 4 5 F .3d 59 9, 60 2- 03 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). W he re th e go ve rn m en t ha s an

em pl oym en t rel at io ns hi p or a si m il ar co nt ract ua l rel at io ns hi p wit h a c om pl ai na nt

, th en th e co m

pl ai na nt ’s sp eech is pr ot ect ed on ly whe n it ad dr es se s a m at te r of pu bl ic

co nc ern

. Se e Smi th v. Cl eb ur ne Cn ty

. Hos p. , 87 0 F .2d 13 75 , 13 81 (8t h C ir. 1 98 9)

. Bu t whe re th e co m

pl ai na nt ’s rel at io ns hi p wit h th e go ve rn m en t is no t a n al og ou s to

th at of em

pl oyee-em

pl oye r , an d th e go ve rn m en t act s as so ve rei gn rat he r th an as an

em pl oyer or co nt ract or in ta ki ng th e al le ge d ret al ia to ry act io n, th en th e co m pl ai na nt ’s

Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m is no t li m it ed by th e pu bl ic co nc ern te st

. Se e Her it ag e , 54 5

F.3 d at 60 2; se e al

so Jen ki ns v. Roc k Hil l Lo ca l Sc h. Dis t.

, 51 3 F.3 d 58 0, 58 6- 88 (6 th

Ci r. 20 08 ).

The am en de d co m

pl ai nt su pp or ts a pl au si bl e in fere nc e th at Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng

was no t a pu bl ic em

pl oyee or co nt ract or an d di d no t ha ve an an al og ou s rel at io ns hi p

t h a t w o u l d cal l fo r li m it in g pr ot ect io n un de r th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t to sp eech o n

m at te rs of pu bl ic co nc e r n

. The am en de d co m pl ai nt al le ge s th at th e Co un ty d id no t

-1 1-em

pl oy pe rs on ne l to rem ov e pr op ert y fro m bu il di ng s su bjec t to ev ic ti on or de rs , bu t

rat he r p e rm it te d pr op ert y own ers “ to hi re th ei r own pr iv at e m ov in g co nt ract or s” to

as si st in ex ecu ti ng ev ic ti on or de rs

. Co un t II al le g e s , i n p a rt, th at th e Co un ty

de li be rat el y ge ne rat ed “ sc he du li ng co nf li ct s” to in te rfer e wit h Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s

ab il it y to se rv e it s pr iv at e cl ie nt s. At th e pl ead in gs st ag e, th eref or e, we co nc lu de th at

Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s co m pl ai nt s to th e sh eri ff an d di rect or of jud ic ia l ad m in is tra ti on

were pr ot ect ed act iv it y

. Se e Bla ckb ur n v. Ci ty of Mar sh al l

, 42 F.3 d 92 5, 93 2- 35 (5 th

Ci r. 19 95 ) (ref

us in g to ap pl y th e “ pu bl ic co nc ern ” req ui rem en t to a to win g op erat or

who al le ge d th at th e ci ty ret al ia te d ag ai ns t hi s co m pl ai nt s ab ou t ci ty bi dd in g

pr oc ed ur es by rev ok in g hi s po li ce radi o freq ue nc y pr iv il eg es , th ereb y th wart in g hi s

pa rti ci pa ti on in a to wi ng ro ta ti on syste m ). W e ne ed no t ad dr es s at th is jun ct ur e

whe th er Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s co m pl ai nt s m ay ha ve in vo lv ed bo th it s pr iv at e in te res ts

an d a mat t e r of pu bl ic co nc ern , a ss um in g th e la tt er were req ui red

. Se e Belk v. Ci ty of Eld on , 22 8 F .3d 87 2, 8 79 -8 0 (8 th Cir . 20 00 ).

The di st ric t co ur t th ou gh t Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng di d no t pl ead a d v ers e act io n

su ffi ci en t to ch il l a pe rs on of or di na ry fir m ne ss , bu t we res pe ct fu ll y di sa gr ee. The

am en de d co m

pl ai nt al le ge s th at Mai n’s act io ns , in ret al ia ti on fo r Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s

co m pl ai nt s to Ove ral l an d Fo x, he lp ed to sh ift a “ su bs ta nt ia l po rti on ” o f La n d l or ds

Mo vi ng ’s bu si ne ss to ot he r m ov ers , an d to “ in hi bi t su bs t a n t i a l l y” th e gr owt h of

Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s bu si ne ss , an d cau se d “ su bs ta nt ia l” eco no m ic in jury. Thi s co ur t

ha s sa id th at whi le a c e r t a i n le ve l of “ em ba rras sm en t, hu m il ia ti on an d em ot io na l

di st res s” wou ld no t ch il l a pe rs on of or di na ry fir m ne ss , Na uc ke v. Ci ty of Par k Hil ls

, 28 4 F.3 d 92 3, 92 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ), ev en th e se le ct iv e is su an ce of pa rk in g ti ck et s to

a co m pl ai ni ng ci ti zen co ul d su pp or t a fin di ng of un la wfu l ret al ia ti o n , d ue to th e

“ co nc ret e co ns eq ue nc es ” o f su ch m is de m ean or ch arg es

. Gar ci a v. Cit y o f Tr en to n , 34 8 F.3 d 72 6, 72 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). W e do no t th in k it wou ld “ tri vi al iz e th e Fi rs t

Amen d men t

, ” N

au cke

, 28 4 F.3 d at 92 8, to ho ld th at a su bs ta nt ia l th reat to on e’s

bu si ne ss is en ou gh to de te r a pe rs on of or di na ry fir m ne ss fro m sp eak in g or pe ti ti on in g

-1 2-th e go ve rn m en t. Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s al le ga ti on s are th us su ffi ci en t to su rv iv e t h e

pl ead in gs st ag e o n t hi s el em en t. 2

As fo r th e fin al el em en t of a Fi rs t Am en dm en t ret al ia ti on cl ai m , Lan dl or ds

Mo vi ng ad eq ua te ly al le ge s th at Mai n’s ad ve rs e a c t i o ns ag ai ns t th e co m pa ny were

m ot iv at ed by Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s co m pl ai nt s to Ove ral l an d Fo x ab o u t t h e ne w

sc he du le

. The am en de d co m pl ai nt al le ge s th at “ aft er a nu m be r of wri t t e n a n d or al

co m m un ic at io ns reg ard in g [th e ne w ev ic ti on sc he du le ] fro m pl ai nt iff s an d th ei r le ga l

co un se l to th e Sh eri ff’s of fic e, Lau rie Mai n an no un ced to m os t of th e [d ep ut y sh eri ffs

na m ed as de fen da nt s] th at sh e was go in g to pu t Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ou t of bu si ne ss .”

The am en de d co m

pl ai nt fu rth er as se rts th at “ [w]ith th e co op erat io n th erea fte r of th e

de pu ti es an d th e en ti re Sh eri ff’s of fic e, Mai n wen t on op en ly to im pl em en t pa rti cu la r

pr oc ed ur es or pr act ic es de li be rat el y an d, from an ob jecti ve po in t of vie w wit hi n th e

of fic e, ob vi ou sl y de si g n e d t o di sa dv an ta ge Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng se ve rel y .” Hav in g

al le ge d a ch ro no lo gy to su pp or t it s ci rcu m st an ti al cl ai m of ret al ia to r y a ct io n,

La n d l o r ds Mo vi ng co nc lu de s th at Mai n ad op te d th e di sc riminat or y m eas ur es “ i n

ret al ia ti on sp eci fic al ly ag ai ns t th e Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng co m pl ai nt s ab ou t an d cri ti ci sm

of th e Im po se d Sch ed ul e.” At th e pl ead in gs st ag e, th es e al le ga ti on s su pp or t a pl au si bl e in fere nc e th at Mai n kn ew of Lan dlo rd s Mo vi ng ’s co m pl ai nt s an d act ed wit h

ret al ia to ry m ot iv e. W e th eref or e co nc lu de th at Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ha s st at ed a cl ai m

ag ai ns t Mai n fo r vi ol at io n of it s Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht s. W he th er th e al le ga ti on s can

be pro ve d, o f co ur se , is a m at te r fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

The di st ric t co ur t al so th ou gh t th e ret al ia ti on cl ai m fai le d be cau se th e al le ge d 2

ret al ia ti on to ok pl ace be fo re Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s co op erat io n wit h au th or it ie s. Thi s

m ay or m ay no t be tru e wit h r e sp ect to Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s co op erat io n wit h th e Uni te d St at es Att or ne y ’s Offi ce, b u t th e am en de d co m pl ai nt al le ge s ret al ia ti on fo r Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s co m pl ai nt s to th e sh eri ff an d di rect or of jud ic ia l ad m in is tra ti on , whi ch pre ced ed th e al le ge d re ta li at or y act s.

-1 3-W e do no t be li ev e, ho wev er, th at th e am en de d co m pl ai nt ad eq ua te ly al le ge s a

Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m ag ai ns t th e ot he r de fen da nt s. Dep ut y Sh eri ff Ro bi ns on is no t

m en ti on ed by na m e in Co un t II, an d th e ge ne ral refe ren ces to ot he r de pu t i e s are

in su ffi ci en t to ch arg e hi m wit h th e al le ge d co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns

. The am en de d

co m pl ai nt al le ge s on ly th at Mai n an no un ced to ot he r de pu ti es th at sh e was go in g to

pu t La n d l or ds Mo vi ng ou t of bu si ne ss , th at sh e “ di rect ed ” ot he r st aff m em be rs to

fo ll ow on e d i s p u t e d pr oc ed ur e, th at sh e “ to ok st ep s to co nf irm” t ha t ot he r de pu ti es

fo ll owe d th e se co nd pr oc ed u re, an d th at sh e act ed wit h “ th e co op erat io n” of “ th e

de pu ti es .” The am en de d co m pl ai nt do es no t al le ge th at Ro bi ns on was on e of th e

de pu ti es to who m Mai n m ad e he r an no un cem en t, al le gi ng on ly th at “ m os t” de pu ti es

na m ed in th e am en de d co m pl ai nt he ard th e st at em en t. The re i s n o a l l e g a ti on th at

Ro bi ns on ev er read a li st of pr iv at e m ov in g co m pa ni es to a pr op ert y own er, o r t ha t

he se le ct iv el y en co ur ag ed oc cu pa nt s to va cat e pr em is es whe n Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng was

hi red to rem ov e rem ai ni ng pr op ert y

. Nor is th ere a n all eg at io n th at Ro bi ns on act ed

wit h ret al ia to ry

m ot iv e in co nd uc ti ng an y su ch act iv it y

. The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y

di sm is se d t he cla im s ag ai ns t Ro bi ns on

.

Su pe rv is or s li ke Ove ral l, Bu ck le s, an d Fo x can no t be he ld vi cari ou sl y li ab le

un de r § 19 83 fo r th e act io ns of a su bo rd in at e. Se e Iq ba l

, 12 9 S. Ct

. at 19 48

. To st at e

a cl ai m , th e pl ai nt iff m

us t pl ead th at th e su pe rv is in g of fic ia l, th ro ug h hi s ow n

in di vi du al act io ns , ha s vi o l at ed th e Co ns ti tu ti on

. Id

. W he re, as he re, th e al le ge d

co n s t i t u ti on al vi ol at io n req ui res pr oo f of an im pe rm is si bl e m ot iv e, th e am en de d

co m pl ai nt m us t al le ge ad eq ua te ly t ha t th e d efen da nt act ed wit h s uc h i m pe rm is si bl e

pu rp os e, no t m erel y

th at he kn ew of

a su bo rd in at e’s m ot iv e. Id

.

The am en de d co m

pl ai nt in th is cas e d o e s n ot ad eq ua te ly al le ge th at Ove ral l,

Bu ck le s, or Fo x to ok ad ve rs e act io n ag ai ns t Lan dl or ds Mo vi n g w i t h ret al ia to ry

mo t i v e

. Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng al le ge s th at each of th e th ree su pe rv is or s “ ei th e r

pa rti ci pa te d hi m se lf in th e co n s p i racy an d ret al ia ti on ag ai ns t [Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ],

-1 4-kn ew of th e co ns pi ra c y a n d r e t al ia ti on bu t fai le d to ta ke act io n to ha lt it

, or sh ou ld

ha ve kn own of th e co ns pi racy an d ret al ia ti on bu t de li b e r a t e l y or wil lfu ll y fai le d to

di sc ov er it an d ha lt it .” Am

. Co m pl

. ¶ 49

. Lik e th e co m

pl ai nt in Iq ba l

, whi ch al le ge d

th at su pe rv is or y of

fic ia ls “ kn ew of

, co nd on ed

, an d wil lfu ll y an d m al ic io us ly ag reed

to ” su bjec t th e pl a i n t i f

f to ha rs h co nd it io ns fo r an il le gi ti m at e reas on , th es e

as se v e r a ti on s ag ai ns t Ove ral l, Bu ck le s, an d Fo x are co nc lu so ry , an d th ey are no t

en ti tl ed to a pr es um

pt io n of tru th

. 12 9 S. Ct

. at 19 51

. The am en de d co m pl ai nt as se rts

th at Mai n t o o k he r act io ns “ op en ly,” an d th at th ey were “ ob vi ou sl y de si gn ed to

di sa d v a nt ag e Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ,” bu t th is pr ob ab ly d oe s no t su ffi ce to al le ge ev en

th at th e act io ns were kn own to th e pa r t i c u l a r su pe rv is or y of fic ia ls na m ed as

de fen da nt s, se e W

il so n v. Ci ty of N. Li tt le Roc k , 8 01 F.2 d 31 6, 32 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 8 6)

,

an d it as s u r e d ly do es no t pl ead ad eq ua te ly th at th e su pe rv is or s act ed wit h

im pe rm is si bl e pu rp os e as req ui red by Iq ba l

. The am en de d co m pl ai nt do es al le ge th at

Fo x “ was in fo rm ed on m a n y o c c a s io ns th ro ug ho ut 20 04 ” ab ou t “ th e irr eg ul ari ti es

wit hi n th e Sh eri ff’s of

fic e,” an d th en de li be rat el y fai le d to ta ke co rrec ti ve act io n.

Am

. Co m

pl

. ¶ 53

. Bu t ev en as su m in g th e al le ge d ret al ia ti on i s a mon g th e

“ irr eg ul ari ti es ,” th is as se rti on is in su ffi ci en t to al le ge th at Fo x act ed wit h a ret al ia to ry

m ot iv e. W e th eref

or e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t cou rt pro pe rly di sm is se d th e cl ai m s

ag ai ns t Ov eral l, Bu ck le s, an d F ox

.

The am en de d co m

pl ai nt al so fai ls to st at e a cl ai m a g a i n s t th e Co un ty. A

m un ic ip al it y can no t be he l d l i a bl e un de r § 19 83 so le ly be cau se it em pl oys a

to rtf eas or

. A m

un ic ip al it y can be li ab le on ly if a m un ic ip al “ po li cy or cu st om ” cau se d

a pl ai nt iff to be de pr iv ed of a fed eral rig ht

. L.A. Cn ty

. v. Hump hr ie s , 13 1 S. Ct

. 44 7,

45 0 (2 01 0) ; Mon el l v. Dep ’t of So c. Se rv s. , 43 6 U.S. 65 8, 69 4 (1 97 8)

. Lan dl or ds

Mo vi ng co nt en ds th at th e “ en tre nc he d br ib ery sc he m e” ru n fro m th e sh eri ff’s of fic e

co ns ti tu te d a “ cu st om

or u sa ge ” su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh m un ic ip al li ab il it y

.

-1 5-As we ha ve co nc lu de d th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y di sm is se d Co un t I of th e

am en de d co m

pl ai nt

, we de al he re on ly wit h th e qu es ti on whe th er th e Co un ty can be

he ld li ab le for th e al le ge d re ta li at or y act io ns tak en by Dep ut y Mai n afte r Lan dl or ds

Mo vi ng co m

pl ai ne d t o th e sh eri ff an d di rect or of jud ic ia l ad m in is tra ti on ab ou t th e

sc he du le im

pl em en t e d in Feb ru ary an d Mar ch 20 04

. The am en de d co m pl ai nt do es

no t a ll eg e th at Mai n act ed pu rs ua nt to m un ic ip al po li cy or cu st om in ret al ia ti ng

ag ai ns t Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng

. It as se rts th at af t er Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng co m pl ai ne d to

Ove ral l an d F ox , Mai n a nn ou nc ed th at sh e was go in g t o p ut Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ou t

of bu si ne ss , th at sh e “ de vi se d an d im pl em en te d” ne w pr oc ed ur es an d pr act ic es , th at

sh e di rect ed ot he r st aff m em be rs to fo ll ow pr oc ed ur es sh e in st it ut ed

, an d th at sh e to ok

st ep s to en su re th at ot he r de pu ti es carr ie d ou t th e ne w pr oc ed ur es

. Co un t II of t h e

a men d e d c om

pl ai nt do es no t al le ge th at th e Co un ty ha d a wid es pr ead cu st om o f

ret al ia ti ng ag ai ns t th os e who co m pl ai ne d to t h e sh eri ff or di rect or of jud ic ia l

ad m in is t r a t io n. The di st ric t co ur t th us pr op erl y di sm is se d th e cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e

Co un ty.

Fi na ll y , th e am en de d co m pl ai nt fai ls to al le ge ad eq ua te ly th at IEA pa rti ci pa te d

in th e ret al ia ti on

. Bec au se IEA is a pr iv at e act or , to pr ov e a § 19 83 cl ai m ag ai ns t it

, Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng m

us t es ta bl is h th at IEA reac he d a m ut ua l un de rs ta nd in g wit h

pu bl ic of fic ia ls th at it wou ld pa rti ci pa te in ret al ia ti ng ag ai ns t Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng

. Se e

Dos se tt v. Fir

st St at e Ban k

, 39 9 F.3 d 94 0, 95 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). W it h res pe ct to th e

Fi rs t Am en dm en t ret al ia ti on cl ai m , th e pl ead in gs al le ge on ly th at IEA was pl aced “ on

th e to p” of th e di sc riminat or y m ov er refe rral li st

, t h a t Mai n en co ur ag ed pr op ert y

own ers to se le ct IEA fo r ex ecu ti ng ev ic ti on s , a n d t ha t IEA be ne fit te d fro m th es e

pr act ic es

. It is tru e th at Co un t II of th e am en de d co m pl ai nt in co rp or at es al le ga ti on s

m ad e in C o u n t I

, b u t th e co ns pi racy al le ge d in Co un t I di ffer s m at eri al ly fro m th e

co ns pi racy ou tl in ed in Co un t II. The am en de d co m pl ai nt as se rts in Co un t I th at IEA

co ns pi red wit h th e ot he r de fen da nt s to em pl oy “ va rio us m an ip ul at or y de vi ces wit hi n

th e Sh eri ff’s of

fic e, in cl ud in g b u t n o t li m it ed to m an ip ul at io n of a de pu ti es wor k

-1 6-sc he du le th at de li be rat el y di sa dv an ta ge d Lan dl o r d s M ov in g.” Am

. Co m pl

. ¶ 26

. Thi s al le ge d co ns pi racy be ga n in 20 03 an d was m ot iv at ed by Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s

“ de m on st rat ed rel uc ta nc e” to co nt in ue pa y in g br ib es an d “ ev en tu al wit hd rawal ” fro m

pa rti ci pa ti on in th e sc he m e. Id

. ¶ 25

. Co un t II, by co nt ras t, a l l e ge s th at th e

de f e n d a n t s ret al ia te d ag ai ns t Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng at a la te r da te , i n 20 04 , b ecau se of

co m pl ai nt s th at Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng m ad e to Ove ral l an d Fo x in 20 04 ab ou t th e wor k

sc he du le de sc rib ed in Co un t I. Co un t II co nt ai ns no al le ga ti on th at IEA en ga ge d in

ret al ia to ry co nd uc t ba se d on th e co m pl ai nt s to Ove ral l an d Fo x, le t al on e th at IEA

reac he d a m eet in g of th e m in ds wit h Mai n to co ns pi re ag ai ns t Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng by

ret al ia ti ng fo r th es e co m pl ai nt s. The in co rp or at io n by refe ren ce of al le ga ti on s in

Co un t I th at IEA co ns pi red wit h ot he rs in 20 03 to m an ip ul at e th e wor k sc he du le do es

n o t su ffi ce to pl ead th at IEA pa rti ci pa te d in th e al le ge d ret al ia ti on in 20 0 4

. We

th eref or e co nc lu de th at th e cl ai m ag ai ns t IEA was pro pe rly dis m is se d.

C.

Co un t III of Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s am en de d co m pl ai nt as se rts a cl ai m un de r 42

U.S.C. § 19 85 ba se d on al le ge d in ti m id at io n of wit ne ss es

. Th e c l ai m ari se s fro m

Lau ra Nels on -Sm it h’s ro le in ai di ng th e fed eral in ve st ig at io n an d pr o s e cu ti on of

de pu ty sh eri ffs who pa rti ci pa te d in th e ki ck ba ck sc he m e. Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng al le ge s

th at “ in ret al ia ti on ag ai ns t th e pl ai nt iff s fo r ha vi ng ai de d th e di sc ov ery an d

pr os ecu ti on of th e il le ga l sc he m e an d th e sc he m e’s pr in ci pa ls an d fo r ha vi ng te st ifi ed

in fed eral co ur t ag ai ns t th em ,” th os e pr in ci pa ls “ ha ve co nt in ue d and ev en in crea se d

th e ex t e nt of th ei r co ns pi racy an d cam pa ig n wit h al l th e de fen da nt s to in jure

Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng .” Am

. Co m pl

. ¶ 60

. On ap pe al

, Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng cl ari fie s th at

it s cl ai m is gro un de d i n § 19 85 (2 ).

-1 7-Sect io n 1 98 5( 2) pro vi de s, i n re le va nt pa rt,

If two or m or e pe rs on s in an y St at e or Ter r i t o r y co ns pi re to de te r, by

f o r c e , i nt im id at io n, or th reat

, an y pa rty or wit ne ss in an y co ur t of th e Uni te d St at es fro m at te nd in g su ch co ur t, or fro m te st ifyin g to an y m at te r

pe nd in g th erei n, free ly, fu ll y , an d tru th fu ll y , or to in jure su ch pa rty or wit ne ss in hi s pe rs on or pr op ert y on acco un t of hi s ha vi ng so at te nd ed

or te st ifi ed

. . . t he pa rty s o in jure d o r de pr iv ed m ay ha ve an act io n fo r th e reco ve ry of da m ag es oc cas io ne d by su ch i nju ry or de pr iv at io n,

ag ai ns t an y

on e o r m or e o f th e co ns pi rat or s.

42 U.S.C. § 1 98 5( 2)

. 3

By it s te rm s, th e st at ut e req ui res a co ns pi racy, bu t “ [t]hi s co ur t ha s he ld th at a

co rp or at io n an d it s ag en ts are a si ng le pe rs on in th e ey es of th e la w, an d a co rp or at io n

can no t co ns pi re wit h it se lf” to vi ol at e 42 U.S.C. § 19 85

. Cr os s v. Gen

. Mot or s Co rp

. , 72 1 F.2 d 11 52

, 11 56 (8 th Ci r. 19 83 ). Und er th is in tra co rp or at e co ns pi racy do ct rin e,

a lo cal go ve rn m en t en ti ty can no t co ns pi re wit h it se lf th ro ug h it s ag en ts act in g wit hi n

th e sc op e of th ei r em

pl oym en t. Id

. ; Rich mon d v. Bd

. o f Re g e nt s of Uni v. of Min n. , 95 7 F.2 d 59 5, 59 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ); cf

. McAnd re w v. Lo ckh eed Mar ti n Co rp

. , 20 6 F.3 d

10 31

, 10 38 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 00 ) (en ba nc ) (“ W e ha ve lo ng reco gn iz ed an ex cep ti on to th e

ap pl ic ab il it y o f th e in tra co rp or at e co ns pi racy do ct rin e fo r in tra co rp or at e cri m in al

co ns pi raci es ari si ng un de r 18 U.S. C

. § 37 1 of th e fed eral cri m in al co de .”). The

refe rral of m ov in g co m

pa ni es to pr op ert y own ers se ek in g th e ex ecu ti on of ev ic ti on s

was wit hi n th e sc op e of em pl oym en t for dep ut ie s and st aff m em be rs in th e sh eri ff’s

The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th is cl ai m on th e gr ou nd th at “ Pl ai nt iff s do no t 3

co nt en d they were de te rred fro m te st ifyin g,” bu t “ rat he r, th ey co nt en d th at th ey [were ]

ret al ia te d ag ai ns t fo r ha vi ng co op erat ed wit h th e au th or it ie s.” The st at ut e, ho wev er, do es fo rb id co ns pi raci es to in jure a wit ne ss “ in hi s pe rs on or pr op ert y on acco un t of

hi s ha vi ng so a t t e n d e d or te st ifi ed .” 42 U.S.C. § 19 85 (2 ); se e Had dl e v. Gar ri so n , 52 5 U.S. 1 21 , 12 5 (1 99 8)

.

-1 8-of

fic e, ev en th ou gh th e am en de d co m pl ai nt al le ge s im

pr op rie ti es in th e ex ecu ti on of

th es e du ti es

. Se e Cr os s , 72 1 F.2 d at 11 57 n.7

. The refo re, to pl ead a pl au si bl e cl ai m

un de r § 19 85

, Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng m us t al le ge th at th e pr iv at e-p art y de fen da nt s, IEA,

pa rti ci pa te d i n t he all eg ed co ns pi racy.

The on ly po ss ib le di rect refe ren ce to IEA in Co un t III is an al le ga ti on th at Mai n

an d ot he r em

pl oyees of the sh eri ff’s offi ce “ in crea se d th e ex te nt of th ei r co ns pi racy

an d cam pa ig n wi th al l th e de

fe nd an ts to in jure Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng by act in g in co nc ert

to sh ift cl ie nt el e fro m Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng to In de pe nd en t Evi ct io n an d ot he r m ov ers .”

A m. Co m pl

. ¶ 60 (em

ph as is ad de d)

. The am en de d co m pl ai nt

, ho wev er, al le ge s no

act io n by IEA to joi n or to fu rth er an al le ge d co ns pi racy. The pl ead in g st at es m erel y

t ha t IEA a nd ot he r m ov ers ga in ed ad di ti on al bu si ne ss as cl ie nt s or po te nt ia l cl ie nt s

of Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng sh ift ed th ei r bu si ne s s

. Th e s e st at em en ts are in su ffi ci en t to

p le ad IEA’ s in vo lv em en t in a co ns pi racy. Co un t III do es in co rp or at e C o u n t I

, in cl ud in g th e al le ga ti on th at IEA pa rti ci pa te d in a c on sp ira cy to us e “ m an ip ul at or y

de vi ces ” th at di sa dv an ta ge d Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng in 20 03

, bu t th es e al le ga ti on s do no t

su pp or t a pl au si bl e in fere nc e th at IEA pa rti ci p a t e d in a di ffer en t co ns pi racy to

ret al ia te fo r Nels on ’s la te r pa rti ci pa ti on in th e fed eral in ve st ig at io n an d pr os ecu ti on

. Bec au se th e rem ai ni n g al le ge d co -co ns pi rat or s were al l em pl oyees of th e Co un ty

act in g wit hi n th e sc op e of th ei r em pl oym en t, Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s § 19 85 cl ai m was

pr op erl y di sm is se d.

D.

Co un t IV of th e a m en de d co m pl ai nt se ek s de cl arat or y an d in jun ct iv e rel ie f.

The di st ric t co ur t, h av in g re so lv ed al l rem ai ni ng cla im s ag ai ns t Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng , di sm is se d th is cl ai m on th e gr ou nd th at th e Decl arat or y Ju d g men t Act do es no t

pr ov id e an in de pe nd en t ba si s fo r ju r i s d i c t io n. Bec au se we rev ers e th e di sm is sa l of

Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s Fi rs t Am en dm en t re ta li at io n cl ai m ag ai ns t Mai n, we al so rev ers e

-1 9-di sm is sa l of th e cl ai m fo r de cl arat or y an d in jun ct iv e rel ie f ag ai ns t Mai n, an d rem an d

th at cla im for fur th er co ns id erat io n.

* * *

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we rev ers e th e di sm is s a l of Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s

cl ai m ag ai ns t de fen da nt Mai n fo r al le ge d vi ol at io ns of Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s rig ht s

un de r th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t, an d we rev ers e t h e di sm is sa l of Lan dl or ds Mo vi ng ’s

cl ai m s fo r de cl arat or y an d in jun ct iv e rel ie f wit h res pe ct to th at cl ai m

. W e affi rm th e

di sm is sa l o f al l o th er cl ai m s an d re m an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

___

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

-2 0-