### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60182
J O E H . B R YA N T , J R ., P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l an t- C ross A pp el l ee v. M IL IT A R YD E P A R T M E N T O F T H E S T A T E O F M IS S IS S IP P I, D efen da n t- A pp el l ee - C ross A p p ell a n t FR ANKLI N E. CHALK; F REDERI CK D. F EI NST EI N; ROY A. GRAHAM ; BI LLY J OE GRE SS ETT; DO N ALD E. J ON ES; LANG FORD L. KN I GH T; F. GREGORY M AL TA ; W I LL I AM F
. P ART EN; ROBER T E. P I ERCE; ROGER E. S HI RL EY; CHARL ES F
. S TE ED; AAR ON K. W I LS ON; T HO M AS TE M PLE ; J O H N D O ES 1- 20 ; LESL I E W I LK ES, D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees.
A p p ea l s f

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i
B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d G A R Z Aan d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es . E M ILIO M
. G A R Z A , C i rcui tJu dg e: Col
. (Ret
. ) J o e H
. Br ya nt( “ Bry ant” ) , a f o r m e rm e m be rof

t he M i s s i s s i ppi Ai rN at i o nalG uar d’ s ( “ M SAN G ” ) 1 86 t h Ref ue l i ng W i ng, s ue d M SAN G a nd i ndi vi dual M SA N G of f i c i al s ( “ I ndi vi dual A ppel l ee s” ) , as se r t i ng c l ai m s und er : ( 1) t he M i l i t ar y W hi s t l e bl o w e rPr o t e c t i o n Ac t , 1 0 U
. S. C. § 10 34 ; ( 2) t he M i s s i s s i ppi United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 17, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-60182 Document: 00511028579 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 09- 60182

Bryant’s clai ms again st in dividual Appell ee F. Gregory Maltainhis individual 1 capacityare still pendingbecau se Malta did not movefor summaryj udgment. Bryant’s state lawclaim s agains t individualAppellee Robert E. Pierc e alsorem ain pending. 2 W h is tle b lo w e rP r o t e c tio n A c t, M IS S . C ODE A NN . §§ 25- 9- 171- 77; (3 ) 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 ; (4 ) 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 5 ; a n d (5 ) 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 6
. B r y a n t la te ra m e n d e d h is
com pl ai n tt o add vari ou s s t ate l aw cl ai m s agai n sti n di vi du alM S A N G of f i ci al s. T h rough t h ree s epa rat e orders t h e di st ri ctcourtdi sposed of al lcl ai m s agai n st M SAN G and t he I ndivi dua l Appe l l e e s i n t he i r o f f i c i al c ap ac i t i e s and al lof t he fede r all aw c l ai m s aga i n st t he I ndi vi dualA ppel l ee s i n t hei ri ndi vi dual
c apac i t i es . Bryantappeal s t hes e r ul i ngs. M SA N G c r os s- appeal s, al l egi ng t hat

1 t he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d i n de nyi ng M SAN G ’ s m o t i o n f o rs anc t i o ns . W e a f

f i r m t he d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f B r y a n t’s cla im s a n d , a s to M S A N G ’ s cr o s s -a p p e a l, af f i rm t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s den i alof sancti on s. I O v e ra n e ig h t-y e a rp e r io d d u r in gh is M S A N G s e r v ic e , B r y a n t a lle g e d ly
o bs e r ve d v ar i o us a c t s o f m i s c o nduc tb y M SAN G o f f i c i al s . Br ya ntr e po r t e d t he al l e ge d m i s c o nduc t t o s upe r i o r o f f i c e r s and ul t i m at e l y f i l e d a c o m pl ai ntw i t h t he I nspec tor G en era lof t he D epar t m entof

t he A i rFor c e. The I nspec t orG ener al
u n d e r t o o k tw o s e p a r a t e in v e s t ig a t io n s , in w h ic h a n u m b e ro f B r y a n t ’s all e ga t i on s of

w rongd oi n g w ere s u bstanti ated. B ryan t ’ s c h arges an d the en sui ng i nve s t i ga t i o n wer e t he s ubj e c to f r e gul arm e di a c o ve r ag e i n l o c a ln e w s pa pe r s a nd
a t a l k r a d i o s h o w. A ccord i n g to B ry a n t, M S A N G a n d th e In d ivid u a lA p p ell ee s resp on d ed to B r y a n t’s “w h is tle b lo w in g” w ith a lita n y o f r e ta lia to r y a c ts
. T h e s e a c ts a lle g e d ly in c lu d e d em p loy m e n t-re la te d a ctio n s s u ch a s a tte m p ts to for ce B ry a n t’s resi gn ati on , career - da m aging repo rts , an d assi gn m en tt o a posi t i on un der a j u n ior off

i cer. B ryan tal so c l ai m s t h at M S A N G of f i ci al s c om m i t t ed acts of
v a n d a lis m a n d v io le n c e , su c h a s b r e a k in gin to B r y a n t’s v e h ic le , st e a lin gh is Case: 09-60182 Document: 00511028579 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 09- 60182

3 la p to p , firin gg u n s h o ts in a n d a r o u n d h is h o m e , c u tt in gth e g a s o lin e lin e to h is
w ife ’ s v e h ic le , h a r a s s in gh im w ith a n o n y m o u s p h o n e ca lls , a n d p h y s ic a lly
a ssaul t i ng hi m . Seve r alof t he I ndi vi dualA ppel l ee s al so f i l ed c ivi ll aw suits aga i n stB ryan t , w h i ch h e contends w ere r et al i ator y an d l acked m eri t
. B ased on t h e s e a l l e g a t i o n s B r y a n ta s s e r t e d fe d e r a la n d s t a t e l a w c l a i ms a g a i n s tMSA NG
an d the Indivi du alA pp el l ees. I n A u g u s t2 0 0 5 , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tg r a n t e da mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s a l lc l a i ms ag ai ns tM SAN G a nd t he I ndivi dua lAppe l l e e s i n t he i ro f f i c i alca pa c i t i e s . The di strict co u rtdi sm i ssed al lcl ai m s agai n stM S A N G becau se t h e M i l i t ary W hi s t l e bl o w e rPr o t e c t i o n Ac t , 1 0 U
. S. C. § 103 4 do e s notcr e at e a ca us e o f a c t i o n, andi n sofara s M SAN G i s a s t at e a ge nc y, a l lo t he rc l ai m s a r e b ar r e d b y t he E l ev en th A m en d m en t. A d d i ti on a l l y, t h e d i stri ct cou rt he l d t hatallem p l oy m en tr el at ed c l ai m s agai nstM SA N G and t he I ndi vi dualA ppel l ee s i n t hei rof f i c i al capa ci t i es are barred u n der F ere s v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 3 4 0 U .S
. 1 3 5 (1 9 5 0 ). In J u ly 2007, t h e d i stri c tc our tgr ant ed s um m ar y j udgm enti n favorof t he I ndi vi dual A pp el l ees i n t h ei r in di vi du alcapaci t i es as t o B ryan t ’ s M i l i t ary W h i st l ebl ow er Pr o t e c t i o n Ac t , M i s s i s s i ppiW hi s t l e bl o w e r Pr o t e c t i o n Act , § § 19 83 , 19 85 ( 2) a nd (3 ), a n d a s s a u lt a n d b a tt e r ycla im s . T h e co u r t a ls o d is p o s e d o f s o m e , b u t n o t a ll, of B ryan t ’ s c l ai m s un der §§ 1985 ( 1) an d 19 86. F i n al l y, i n Ju l y 200 8, t h e di st ri ct c o u r t g r a n te d s u m m a r yju d g m e n t in fa v o ro f th e In d iv id u a l A p p e ll e e s i n th e ir i ndivi dua lc ap ac i t i e s a s t o Br ya nt ’ s r e m ai ni ng § § 1 98 5( 1) a nd 1 98 6 c l ai m s . The di st ri ctcourtenter e d a R u le 54(b) cer t i f i cat i on of

f i n alj u dg m en tas t o t h ose c l ai m s deni ed and par t i es di sm i ss ed by the or der s of A ugust26, 2005, Jul y 17, 200 7, an d Ju l y 17, 2 008
. B ryan tt h ereaf t er brough tt h e i n st an tapp eali n w h i ch h e contends that t h e di st ri ctcourterr on eo u sl y ap pl i ed the F ere s do ctri n e to di sm i ss t he c l ai m s agai nstM SA N G and t he I ndi vi dualA ppel l ee s i n t hei rof f i c i al
c ap ac i t i e s , i nc o r r e c t l y gr ant e d s um m ar y j udg m e nti n t he J ul y 20 07 o r de r , a nd Case: 09-60182 Document: 00511028579 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 09- 60182

MSANG style d it s m otio nto di smi ss, inwhichth e I n dividu al App elle esj oin ed , a s a 2 “Rule 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), 12(c), and E leventhAmendment Motion to Dismiss and for Judgment on the Pl eadings.” The district court did not specifyunder whichpro cedur al mechanism(s) it was dismissin g the clai ms, an d Bryant did not spe cifywhich procedural grant(s) of dismissal he appeals, b ut regardl ess, th e standar d of review i s thesame. 4 m i s ap pl i e d Fi r s tAm e ndm e ntl aw i n de t e r m i ni ng t hatBr ya nt ’ s § 1 98 5( 1) a nd § 1 98 6 c l ai m s pr e di c at e d o n a l l e ge dl y r e t al i at o r y l i t i ga t i o n wer e b ar r e d. II T h is c o u r t re v ie w s R u le 12(b) ( 1) , 1 2(b) ( 6) , a n d 12 ( c) di sposi t i on s de no vo . 2 S ee, e . g. , W

alc h v. A d

j u t an tG en. ’

s D ep’ tof T ex. , 53 3 F. 3d 28 9, 29 3 ( 5t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ); D oe v. M

yS pa ce, I n c. , 5 28 F
. 3d 413 , 418 ( 5th C i r. 200 8)
. Th i s c ou rtal so r e vi e w s de no vo a g r anto f Rul e 5 6 s um m ar y j udg m e nt
. T h e c o u r ta f f i r ms s um m ar y j udg m e nti f t he r ecord reveal s no g e nui ne i s s ue o f m at e r i alfac ta nd th e m o v a n t is e n tit le d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tt e ro f la w . C rof tv. G over n o r of Te x as , 562 F
. 3d 735 , 742 ( 5th C i r. 200 9)
. W h en cond u ct i n g i t s revi ew , t h e court
w ill e v a lu a te th e e v id e n c e in t h e lig h t m o s t fa v o r a b le to th e n o n -m o v a n t. Bre aux v. Hall i bu rt on E n ergy Servs. , 5 6 2 F .3d 3 5 8 , 3 6 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). III B r y a n ta s s e r t s t h a tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r te r r e d i n d i s mi s s i n g h i s c l a i ms aga i n stM S A N G un der t h e F ere s d o c tr in e . H is b r ie f, h o w e v e r , su b s ta n tiv e ly di scusses t h e F

ere s i s s u e o n l yi n r e l a t i o n t o h i s v a n d a l i s m a n d v i o l e n c e c l a i ms a ga i n st t h e In d ivid u a lA p p ell ee s. T h e d i stri ct co u rt clea rl y h eld th a t F ere s w as no ta g r o und f

o rdi s po s i ng o f

t he v and al i s m c l ai m s a nd o nl y ap pl i e d F ere s to Bry ant ’ s c l a i m s o f

e m p l o y m e n t
- r e l a t e d r e t a l i a t i o n a g a i n s tM S ANG a n d t he In d iv id u a l A p p e lle e s . B ryan tv. Mi l i t ary D ep’ tof S t ateof

Mi ss. , 381 F. Supp. 2d 5 8 6 , 5 9 4 (S .D
. M iss
. 2 0 0 5 ) ( “B ry a n t I ” )
. A c c o r di ngl y, t he l i m i t e d F ere s di scussi on i n B ryan t ’ s b rie f cen t ers arou n d the w rong cl ai m s and t h e w rong p art i es. B ryan t ’ s fai l u re t o adeq u atel y bri ef t h e F ere s is sue i s a w ai ver of t h ese c l ai m s. Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mart i n ez , 263 F
. 3d 436 , 438 ( 5th C i r. 200 1)
. B ryan tdi d n ot Case: 09-60182 Document: 00511028579 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 09- 60182

The district court ’ s o r der, referringto its previou s dismissalof Bryant’s Military 3 Whi stleb lower Protection Act claims, reiterated that thestatute does not authori ze a private cau seof actio n . Brya nt II , 51 9 F. S up p . 2 dat 62 6. Th e di strict court granted su mmary j u dgme nt onBryant’ s claimun der th e Mi ssi ssipp i Whis tl eb lowe r Prote ctio nActb ec au se Bryantoffered no respon se toth e I ndividual Appellees’ arguments that the Act applies only to action s bya state “agency ,” not c oworkers; covers onlyacts that impact employment; and do esnotapp lyf

oractions af

teran e mp loyeei s no lo n gere mp loyed
. I d
. at 626 -27. Bryant rais esno is su e onapp eal withr es pe ctto th es e rulin g s. Bryant spends some three pages of his bri ef di scussin g his clai ms of intention al and 4 negligent infliction of mental distress, defamatory/f al s e light liabilityan d intention al interference with employment. It i s unclear whetherBryant believes th at thesecl aims were dismis s ed
. Inanyevent, we ne ed not a ddress th ese clai ms bec auseth e di strict court h as retainedj uri sdictionoverth em . See Bry ant II , 519 F. Supp. 2d at 633 -34 (noting that eachof 5 p r e s erv e th e issu e m ere l y b y m en ti on i n g iti n the “Sta tem en t of Issu es.” S ee, e . g. , Jus t i s s O i l Co. v . K e r r - Mc G e eRef

. Cor p. , 75 F. 3d 1057, 1067 ( 5t h C i r . 1996) ( decl i n i n g t o add ress t h e m eri t s of an i ssue rais ed on l y i n t h e Statem en tof Issu es a n d n o t a rg u ed i n the bo d y o f th e b ri ef)
. A ccord i n gly, w e d ecli n e to ad dress t h e propri et y of t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalun der F ere s . M oreover, t h e deci si on bel ow st an ds on i n dep en den tgroun ds. Th e di st ri ct c o ur tru l e d t hata l lo f Br ya nt ’ s c l ai m s a ga i ns tM SAN G a r e b ar r e d b y t he E l even t h A m en dm en tan d that t h e §§ 1983 , 198 5, an d 19 86 c la im s a re barred be c aus e M SAN G i s no ta “ pe r s o n” und e rt ho s e s t at ut e s . Br ya ntfai l e d t o a r gue th a t ei th er of tho se d eterm i n a ti on s w a s i n corre ct. H i s fa i l u re to d o so i s fa tal t o h is a p p e a l o f M S A N G ’ s d is m is s a l fr o m th is litig a tio n . See , e . g. , B err y v. Jef f ers on Pari sh , 326 F
. A pp ’ x 748 , 750 ( 5th C i r. 200 9) (u n pu bl i she d ) ( “A n un bri efed
a r g u m e n t is a n u n p r e s e r v e d a r g u m e n t.” ); seealso F ED . R. A PP . P. 2 8 (a )(9)(A). IV B r yantnextcont ends t hatt he di st r i c tc our ter r oneo usl y gr ant ed par t i al
s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t in its J u ly2 0 0 7 o r d e r . S e eB r y a n t v . Mis s . Mil it a r y D e p ’t , 5 1 9 F
. S u p p . 2 d 6 2 2 , 6 2 6 (S .D
. M iss
. 2 0 0 7 ) ( “B rya n t II ” )
. Bryant ’ s appeal 3 addre ss es onl y t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s gr antof s um m ar y j udgm enton hi s §§ 1983, 198 5( 1) an d ( 2) , an d 198 6 cl ai m s, a n d t h e stat e law a ssaultan d ba t t ery cl ai m s. 4 Case: 09-60182 Document: 00511028579 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 09- 60182

thesecl aims is b ased on all egatio ns regardingdefe ndant Pierce’s activitie san dconclu din g that is su esof materi al factp re clu de d su mmaryj u dgme nt a s to th e tortclaim s a gain stPierc e)
. 6 T h e di st ri ctcourtrul ed that B ryan tcoul d n otsucceed on an y § 198 3 F i rst A m en dm en t cl ai m becau se h e fai l ed t o show t h at t h e Indivi du al A pp el l ees act ed

“ unde rc o l o ro f s t at e l aw. ” W i t h r e s pe c t t o Bry ant ’ s § § 19 85 and1 98 6 c l ai m s , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tr ul e d t hata ny c l ai m s und e r§ § 19 85 ( 2) a nd ( 3) fai lb e c aus e Br ya nt coul d n otdem on st rat e t h at t h e I n di vi du alA pp el l ees w ere m ot ived by “r aci alor som e oth er typ e of i n vid i ou s, cla s s -ba sed disti n cti on . ” I d. a t6 28 (c i t at i o ns o m i t t e d)
. The di s t r i c tc o ur t f ur t he r f o und t hat Bry ant fai l e d t o c r e at e a g e nui ne i ssue of m ater i alfactw i t h res pect t o hi s § 198 5( 1) cl ai m based on al l egati on s of
v a n d a lis m a n d v io le n c e . F in a ll y , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d is m is s e d B r y a n t’s a s s a u lt
an d ba t t ery cl ai m s as barred by t h e st atute of l i m i t ati on s. A A c l ai m f

o r vi o l at i o n o f

Fi r s tAm e ndm e ntr i ght s m us tb e b r o ugh tpur s uant to 42 U
. S
. C
. § 19 8 3
. T o sta te a claim u n d er § 1 9 8 3 , a p l a i n ti ff m u st all eg e facts show i n g t h at a person, act i n g u n der col or of st ate l aw , dep rived t h e pl ai n t i f f of
a r i ght , pr ivi l e ge o r i m m uni t y s e c ur e d b y t he U ni t e d Sa t e s Cons t i t ut i o n o rt he la w s o f th e U n ite d S ta te s . E l l i son v. D e La R osa , 685 F
. 2d 959 , 960 ( 5th C i r. 198 2)
. Aperson acts “ u n der col or of st ate l aw ” i f h e en gag es i n t h e “ [ m ] i suse of po w e r , po s s e s s e d b y vi r t ue o f stat e l aw and m ad e po s s ibl e o nl y be c aus e t he
w ron gd oe r i s c l oth ed w i th the au th ority of state law
. . . . ” T ow n sendv. Moya , 291 F. 3d 859, 861 ( 5t h C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. Cau sey , 185 F. 3d 407, 4 1 5 ( 5 th C i r. 19 9 9 ))
. H ow ev er, a state off i cer d oe s n ot act “u n d er col or of state l aw” i f he “ pur s ue s pe r s o nal o bj e c t ive s w i t ho ut us i ng o r m i s us i ng t he pow er gr a n ted to h i m by the state to a ch i ev e th e p erso n a laim
. ” Id
. ( quot i ng Harr i s v. R h od es , 9 4 F .3d 1 9 6 , 1 9 7 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 7 )). Bry antf

i r s ta r gu ed t h athi s l awsui ta ddr e s s e d a c t i o ns t ak e n b y t he I ndivi dua lAppe l l e e s a s “ i ndivi du al s , w ho j us ts o ha ppe n t o a l s o b e i n t he Case: 09-60182 Document: 00511028579 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 09- 60182

I ndee d, as detailed above , Bryant’s brief undercuts hi s own position byemph asizing 5 that th e I ndividual Appell ees acted for their own “personalbenefit” and characterizing th eir actions as an “extra-military matter.” Appell ant’s Br. at 1 1, 3 5. 7 m ilita r yb u t w h o a c t fo rn o m ilita r yp u r p o s e o rr e a s o n s ; ra th e r , th e ya c t fo rth e ir
ow n h a tred ag a i n st t h e p l a i n ti ff
. ” B rya n t II, 5 19 F. Supp
. 2 d a t6 28
. Br ya nt f ur t he ra r gue d t hatt he I ndivi dua lAppe l l e e s ’“ ac t i o ns o c c ur [ e d] of f b as e , ha ve no ju s tifia b le m ilita r yp u r p o s e , [a n d ] a r e p e r p e tr a te d s o le lyfo rp e r s o n a l re a s o n s .” I d. Rec o gni z i ng t hatt he s e a l l e ga t i o ns w o ul d d o o m hi s § 1 98 3 c l ai m s , Br ya nt t hen c ont ended t hatt he I ndi vi dualA ppel l ee s a c t ed underc ol orof s t at e l aw be c ause t he y “ c l o t he [ d] t he m s e l ve s a s m e m be r s o f t he s t at e m i l i t i a” a nd att em pted t o si l en ce B ryan t f or t h ei r ow n persona l ben ef i t , n am ely to p ro t ect th e irm ilia r yca r e e r s . I d. B u t t h e d is t r ic tc o u r tc o n c lu d e d th a tB r y a n t ’s
a lle g a tio n s , in tera lia , assau l t , van da l i sm , h arassi n g ph on e cal l s, t ryi n g to g et B ryan tf

i red f rom hi s c ivi l i an j ob, an d f i ri n g gu n shots nea r B ryan t ’ s hom e, even i f un dertaken t o prot ectt h e I n di vi du alA pp el l ees’m i l i t ary posi t i on s, “ w ere not
m ad e possibl e by defend an t s’m i l i t ary posi t i on s an d di d not occur i n t h e course of de fen d a n ts’pe rform i n g a n y o f th eir m i l i tary du ti es.” I d. Bry antha s fai l e d t o poi ntt o sp e c i f i c fac t s sho w i ng t he r e i s a g e nui ne i s s ue w h e th e rth e In d iv id u a l A p p e lle e s a c te d u n d e rco lo ro f s ta te la w . H e m a k e s o n ly 5 a concl u sory ass ert i on t h at t h ese i n di vi du al s w an t ed to protec t t h ei r m i l i t ary c a r e e r s . Am o tiv e to p r o te c t o n e ’ s ca r e e ris a p e r s o n a l m o tiv a tio n , n o t s p e c ific t o i n di vi du al s p o ss e ssi n g st ate authori t y, an d w i t h ou tm ore, na m el y, an act unde rc o l o r s t at e l aw i n t he pe r f o r m anc e o f

a c t ualo rpr e t e nde d d ut i e s o rdo ne w ith a p r e te n s e o f o ffic ia l a u th o r ity , i s n o t s u f fic ie n t. See , e . g. , D e l c am br ev. D el cam bre , 6 3 5 F .2 d 4 0 7 , 4 0 8 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ) (fin d in gd is m is s a l o f a § 1 9 8 3 cla im pro perw her e a n al t er c at i on ar os e o f outof a p ers onalfam i l y and pol i t i c al d i sp u te an d the po l i ce offi cer d i d n ot u se o r thr ea ten to u se a n y sta te au th ority d u rin gth e a lter ca tion ); see als o R evene v. C h arl es Cou n ty Com m ’ rs , 882 F. 2d 870 Case: 09-60182 Document: 00511028579 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 09- 60182

8 (4 th C ir
. 1 9 8 9 ) (“[ T ]h e n a tu r e o f th e a c t is c o n tr o llin g .”); Man n i ng v. Jon es , 696 F . S u p p . 1 2 3 1 , 1 2 3 5 (S .D . In d . 1 9 8 8 ) (fin d in g t h a t n o t a ll a c ts o f s ta te o ffic ia ls
ar e unde r c o l o r o f s t at e l aw wher e m o t iva t i o n i s pe r s o nal and ac t or di d n ot i n vok e or u se any of

f i ci alau t h ori t y)
. I tdoes not f ol l ow f rom a desi re t o prot ect th e ir m i l i t ary careers t h at any of t h ese i n di vi du al s’act i on s w ere achi eved t hr o ugh t he us e o rm i s us e o f po w e rg r ant e d b y t he s t at e . I nde e d, t he a l l e ga t i o ns t ak en i n t h e li gh tm ostfavorab l e t o B ryan ti m pl i cat e no exerci se of st ate pow er w h atsoever
. N o reasonab l e j u ry coul d r en der a verdi cti n B ryan t ’ s favor based
o n a lle g a tio n s o f m o tiv e a lo n e , a n d a c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly g r a n te d s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t on B r y a n t’s § 1 9 8 3 cla im s . S ee R ees e v. A n d ers on , 9 2 6 F .2d 4 9 4 , 4 9 9 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). B B r yantal l ege s t hatt he I ndi vi dualA ppel l ee s vi ol ated §§ 1985( 1) and ( 2)
an d § 198 6 by for m i n g an assoc i ati on kn ow n as t h e “C on cerned G u ardsm en of M i ssi ssi pp i” t o carr y ou tact s of van da l i sm an d vi ol en ce and by f i l i n g ret al i ator y c iv il la w s u its a g a in s t B r y a n t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t fo u n d th a t a § 1 9 8 5 (2 ) c la im
w ou l d n otl i e becau se t h e “ equ alprot ect i on ” l an gu age of t h at sect i on requi res a sho w in g t h at t h e conspi racy w as m ot ivated by cl ass- based di scr i m i n ator y a n im u s a n d w h is tle b lo w e r s a r e n o t a p r o te c te d cla s s . S ee B rya n t II, 5 19 F. Supp
. 2d at 629
. W i t h respect t o t h e § 198 5( 1) cl ai m s, B ryan t ’ s pl ead i n g s a ll eged spe c i f i c i nst ance s of

vandal i sm and vi ol enc e, butt he di st r i c tc ou rt foun d t hat
s um m ar y j udg m e ntno ne t he l e s s w as w ar r ant e d b e c aus e Br ya ntfai l e d t o r e but t he I ndivi dua lAppe l l e e s ’e vi de nc e t hatot he rm e m be r s of t he co m m uni t y hada “stron g m oti ve to disl i k e” B ry a n t an d th ere fore cou l d h a ve pe rp etra ted the acts o f v a n d a lis m a n d v io le n c e . Id
. at631. Se c t i o n 19 85 ( 1) pr o hibi t s c o ns pi r ac i e s “ t o pr e ve nt , byf o r c e , i nt i m i da t i o n, or t h reat” a federalof f i cer f rom di schargi n g h i s du t i es ort o i nj u re hi m becau se Case: 09-60182 Document: 00511028579 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 09- 60182

The first clau se of § 1 985 (2) prohibits conspiraci es todeter witnesses fro m att ending 6 court or testifying , punish witnesses who have so atten ded or t estifie d, or inj ure jurors. Th e district court foun d this subsection inapplicableto Bryant’s cl aims, an dBryantdoe s not appeal thatfinding. 9 of hi s l aw f

uldi sc harge of

h i s dut i es . 42 U
. S. C
. § 1985( 1) ( 2009)
. Sec t i on 1985( 2) 6 p roh ib i ts con sp i ra ci es to d en y a n y citi ze n eq u a lpr otect io n o f th e law s or to i nj ur e a c i t i z e n f

o rhi s e f f o r t s t o e ns ur e t he r i ght s o f o t he r s t o e qua lpr o t e c t i o n. 42 U
. S. C. § 1 98 5( 2) ( 20 09 )
. Se c t i o n 198 6 pe nal i z e s t ho s e w i t h kno w l e dg e o f a nd t he pow ert o pr eve nt§ 1 9 8 5 co nspi r ac i es w ho fai lt o do s o. 42 U
. S. C
. § 1986 (2 0 0 9 ). O n app eal , B ryan tcontends that t h e In d ivid u alA pp el l ees’act i on s w ere i nt e nde d t o pr e ve nthi m f r o m di s c har gi ng hi s dut i e s as an M SAN G o f f i c e ra nd to i m p ed e h i m f

rom “en ga gin g t h e d u e c o u r s e of j u sti ce . . . w i th the i n ten t t o d en y . . . the eq u a lpr otection of th e law s. ” B ry a n t arg u es, w i th ou t cit a ti on to a n ya u t h o r i t y , t h a t“ [ n ] o c l a s s s t a t u s i s ne e d [ e d ] fo rs u c h a c l a i m un d e r4 2 U. S
. C. § 198 5( 2)
. ” W e di sagree. T h e “ l an gu age r equ i ri n g i n t en t t o dep riv e of e qua l protec t i on , or e qua lp r iv i l e g e s a n d i mmu n i t i e s , me a n s t h a tt h e r e mu s tb e s o me r ac i al , o r. . . c l as s - ba s e d, i nvi di o us l y di s c r i m i nat o r y ani m us b e hi nd t he
con sp i ra tor ’ s a c tio n . ” SeeG r if f i n v. B r e c ke nri dge , 403 U
. S. 88, 102 ( 1971) ( em ph asi s add ed) (ref erri n g t o § 1985 ( 3) )
. Th i s C i rcui t h as h el d t h at t h e cl assbased an i m u s r equ i rem en tof § 1985 ( 3) a pp l i es equ al l y t o cau ses of act i on un der th e s e c o n d cla u s e o f § 1 9 8 5 (2 ) s u c h a s B r y a n t’s cla im s h e r e . D a ig le v
. G u lf S ta te Ut i ls. Co. , 7 9 4 F .2 d 9 7 4 , 9 7 9 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) (n o tin gth e p a r a lle l la n g u a g e in §§ 1985( 2) an d 1985( 3) prohibi t i ng c er t ai n c onductw i t h an i nt entt o de ny “ e qua l pr o t e c t i o n o f

t he l aws” )
. M o r e o ve r , w e ha ve pr evi o us l y r ej e c t e d t he a r gum e nt th a t “ w h is tle b lo w e r s ” a r e a p r o t e c t e d c la s s fo rp u r p o s e s o f § 1 9 8 5 cla im s . S ee G arri e v. Ja m es L
. G ray, I n c. , 912 F
. 2d 808 , 813 n. 13 (5t h C i r. 199 0)
. B ecau se Case: 09-60182 Document: 00511028579 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 09- 60182

10 B ryan t ’ s s t atus as a w h i st l ebl ow er does not en t i t l e h i m t o prot ect i on un der § 1 9 8 5 ( 2 ) , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tc o r r e c t l yd i s mi s s e d t h e c l a i m. B r y a n t a ls o a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f s u m m a r yju d g m e n t o n h is § 198 5( 1) cl ai m s predi cat ed on van da l i sm an d vi ol en ce. A cau se of act i on un der § 198 5( 1) requ i res n o a l l egati on of raci alor cl ass- based d i scr i m i n ator y an i m u s. SeeKush v. R ut le dge , 460 U
. S
. 719 , 726 ( 198 3)
. A ccor di n gl y, B ryan t ’ s “ fai l u re to i d en ti fy an y su ch an i m u s i s n o im p ed i m en t. ” B rya n t II, 519 F. Supp. 2d at 6 2 9
. N o n e th e le s s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r lyco n c lu d e d th a t B r y a n t’s cla im is ba r r e d b e c aus e he fai l e d t o c r e at e a ge nui ne i s s ue o f m at e r i al fac tw he t he rt he Ind ivi dua lAppe l l e e s c o m m i t t e d t he a l l e ge d a c t s . Br ya ntpr e s e nt e d e vi den ce th a t som eone c o m m i t t e d a c t s o f v i o l e nc e , v and al i s m a nd h ar as s m e nt
. For i ns t anc e , s o m e o ne s e nta n a no nym o us g r e e t i ng c ar d t o hi s ho m e c o ngr at ul at i ng B ryan ton h aving an i l l egi t i m ate c h i l d. Som eon e a l so ap pa rentl y m ai l ed l et t ers t o B ryan t ’ s em pl oyer, F edE x, a l l egi n g am on g ot h er t h i n gs t h at B ryan tsm u ggl ed
m ach i n e gu n s on a F edE x pl an e. W h i l e B ryan tsucceeded i n presenti n g evi den ce o f v i o l e nc e , t hr e at s a nd i nt i m i da t i o n, he pr e s e nt e d no di r e c te vi de nc e t hata ny of t h e In d ivid u a lA p p ell ee s p erp etra ted the se a cts. Inste a d B r y a n t p oin ted to ci rcum st an t i alevi den ce t h at hi s w h i st l ebl ow i n g act ivi t i es w ere m ot i ve f or M SAN G o f

f i c i al s t o c o m m i tr e t al i at o r y ac t s . Butt he I ndivi dua lAppe l l ees r es ponded w i t h evi denc e t hat ot her m em ber s of t he c om m uni t y w er e a nger ed by B ry a n t’ s ac tiviti es a n d thu s sh a red a sim i la r m o tiv e. “O n ce th e m ov i n g p a rty has s ho w n ‘ t hatt he r e i s a n a bs e nc e o f e vi de nc e t o s upp o r tt he no n - m ovi ng pa r t y’ s c aus e , ’t he non- m o va ntm us tco m e fo r w ar d w i t h ‘ s pe c i f i c fac t s ’s ho w i ng a ge n u i n e factu a li ssu es for tri a l
. ” O live rv . S co tt , 276 F
. 3d 736 , 744 ( 5th C i r. 200 2)
. To su rvive sum m ary j u dg m en t , B ryan tw as requir ed to poi n tt o sp ec ifi c f act s t h at w ou l d cr e a te a t ri able qu est i on w h et h er t h e I n di vi du alA pp el l ees, rat h er t h an som eon e el se, com m i t t ed t h e retal i ator y act s. B ryan tfai l ed to do so. H i s onl y resp on se t o I ndi vi dualA ppel l ee s’ev i denc e o f ot her s’m ot ive w as t hat Case: 09-60182 Document: 00511028579 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 09- 60182

Th e r e c o r d inc o n s i s t e ntly r e f l e c t s th e d at e o f th e all e ge d a s s ault an d battery 7 alternatelyas Septemb er 3 , 20 03 or Septemb er 12, 200 3. Regardl ess of whichdat e i s correct, th e st atuteof li mitation s wouldh ave runb yth e ti meBryant file d suito nthistort cl aim
. 11 h e bel i eved t h at t h e I n di vi du alA pp el l ees’ m ot ive w as st ronger. B ryan t ’ s bel i ef i s no te vi de nc e t hatc r e at e s a t r i ab l e facti s s ue ; t he r e f o r e , s um m ar y j udg m e nt
w as proper. C B ryan tal so app eal s the di s t ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalof hi s assaul tan d ba t t ery c l ai m s a g a i n s tI n d iv i d u a lAp p e l l e e s , T h o m a s T e m p l e a n d L e s l i e W i l k e s . T he al l eged assaultocc u rred, at t h e l atest , on S eptem ber 12, 200 3. B ryan tdi d n ot 7 f i l e h i s s u i tu n t i lMa r c h 1 7 , 2 0 0 5
. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tf o u n d t h e s e c l a i ms t i me ba r r e d b y M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s o ne - ye ars t at ut e o f l i m i t at i o ns . Bry ant t r i e s t o av o i d t he sta tu te of li m ita tion s b ya rg u in gth a t th e a ss a u lt an d b a tte ry w e r e p a rt o f a pa t t e r n o f o ngo i ng and c o nt i nui ng t hr e at s , ha r as s m e nt , a nd i nt i m i da t i o n. The Indivi du alA pp el l ees r espon d that assaul ta n d batt ery a re n ota m on g t h e t yp es of t ort s t h at c an be cl assi f i ed as “c on t i n u i n g” an d theref ore a re not exem pted fr o m th e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s a s “c o n tin u in gto r ts .” The s t at ut e o f

l i m i t at i o ns f

o ras s aul tac t i o ns unde rM i s s i s s i ppil aw i s o ne y e a r . S ee M IS S . C ODE A NN . § 1 5- 1- 35 ( 20 09) ( “Al la c t i o ns f o r. . . a s s aul ta nd batt ery . . . sh al lb e com m en ced w i t h i n one ( 1) year nex taf t er t h e cause of

such
ac t i on accr u ed, an d n otaf t er. ” )
. U n der M i ssi ssi pp il aw , t h e st atute of l i m i t ati o ns is to lle d b yth e co n tin u in gto r t d o c tr in e w h e r e th e r e is a re p e a te d inju r y . S ee McC o rk le v
. Mc Co rk le , 8 1 1 S o . 2 d 2 5 8 , 2 6 4 (¶ 1 2 ) (M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 1 ). “T h is pri n ci pl e app l i es, how ever, i n situ a t i on s w h ere a defen da n tcom m i t s r epea t ed
a c t s o f w r o n g f u lc o n d u c t , n o t w h e r e h a r m r e v e r b e r a t e s f r o m a s i n g l e , o n e - t i me a ct or om i ssion
. ” S m i t h v. S n eed , 6 3 8 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 2 , 1 2 5 5 (M is s . 1 9 9 4 ). A

“ c o nt i nui ng t o r t” i s “ o ne i nf l i ct ed ove ra pe r i o d o f t i m e , i ti nvo l ve s a w r o ngf ul Case: 09-60182 Document: 00511028579 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 09- 60182

The district court cites no authority that an assault an dbatterymaynot b e a 8 co ntinuingtort an d weh ave fou n d no suchauthorityun der Mi ssi ssipp i law. However , so me c ou rt s h ol d th at assault and batterymaybea continuing tort where, for instance, multipl e inci de nts of a ssault an d b att ery are perp etrate d a s in ca se s of ab u sive relation ship s. See, e.g. , Cusse aux v . Pic kett , 65 2 A .2d 7 89, 794(N.J. 199 4) (finding that eachincident of batteryan d a ssault is not a se parate , b ut a co ntinuin g tort wh ere part of a patt ern of ab u se an d viole nce). 12 cond u ctt h at i s r epea t ed u n t i ldesi st ed, an d each day cr eates a separate cause of acti on . ” I

d. at1256. Bry ant ’ s c o nt i nui ng t o r tt he o r y fai l s . Fi r s t , w e f i nd u nav ai l i ng t he
ar gum entt hatt he a l l egat i ons c om pri si ng B r yant ’ s § 1 985 c l ai m s c an be
com bi n ed w i t h th e s i n gl e i n ci den tof assaultan d ba t t ery t o const i t u t e a

“ conti n u i n g t ort
. ” F or on e t h i n g, a conti n u i n g t ort i s “ a w ron gf ulc onductt hat is re p e a te d u n til d e s is te d ,” n o t a n a m a lg a m o f v a r io u s w r o n g s . I d. (e m p h a s is
a d d e d ). S e c o n d , w h ile t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t o p in e s th a t “ th e a s s a u lt a n d b a tt e r yis noti t se l f

a c ont i nui ng t or t , ” w e ne ed notdec i de w het herunder M i ss i ss i ppil aw assau l tan d ba t t ery m ay ever consti t u t e a conti n u i n g t ort
. A n al l ega tion o f a 8
s i ngl e i nc i de nti s pl ai nl y i ns uf f i c i e ntt o m e e tt he re qui r e m e ntt hatt he w r o ngf ul cond u ctbe repeated an d t h at t h e ha rm not “ reverberat e f rom one w rongfulact of om is s io n . ” I

d. a t1 25 5. The c o nt i nui ng t o r tdo c t r i ne do e s no ta ppl y and Bry ant ’ s a s s aul ta nd b at t e r y c l ai m i s b ar r e d. V F in a lly , B r y a n t a p p e a ls t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f s u m m a r yju d g m e n t in defenda n t s’favor on h is § 1 985 ( 1) cl ai m based on al l egati on s of ret al i ator y l i t i g a t i o n . T h e a l l e g e d l y“ r e t a l i a t o r yl i t i g a t i o n ” i n c l u d e s a s l a n d e rs u i t , t wo m al i c i o us pr o s e c ut i o n s ui t s , a nd a n i nva si on of pr iva c y s ui tf i l e d b y va r i o us Indivi du alA pp el l ees agai n stB ryan t
. In theirf i rstm ot i on f

or s u m m ary j u dg m en t , t h e I n di vi du alA pp el l ees h a d a rgued t h at t h e al l eged l y ret al i ator y sui t s c oul d notf

or m t he bas i s of

a § 1985( 1) c l ai m . Ci t i ng B il l Jo h n s o n ’s Re s t a u r a n t s v . NLRB , 461 U
. S
. 731 ( 198 3) , t h ey contend ed that sum m ary Case: 09-60182 Document: 00511028579 Page: 12 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 09- 60182

13 ju d g m e n t w a s p r o p e rb e c a u s e “t h e filin go f a m e r ito r io u s s u it is n o t a n a c tio n a b le
a c t o f r e ta lia tio n .” T h e ym a in ta in e d th a t b e c a u s e th e irs u its h a d a re a s o n a b le b a s is in fa c t a n d la w th e yco u ld n o t b e h e ld lia b le fo rre ta lia tio n . In its J u ly 200 7 order t h e di st ri ctcourtden i ed the m ot i on , expl ai n i n g t h at i tcoul d n ot si m pl y assum e a reasonab l e basi s f or bri n gi n g t h e al l eged l y ret al i ator y l aw sui t s. B rya n t II, 519 F
. S u pp . 2 d at 63 2. B u tin it s Ju n e 2 008 ord er the di st ri ctcourt
r ec ons i der ed t he i ss ue and r eac hed t he o ppos i t e c onc l usi on af t erappl yi ng BE & K Con st r. Co . v . NL RB , 5 3 6 U
. S. 516 ( 2002)
. The di st r i c tc our tf ound t hat B r yant ’ s § 1 985( 1) c l ai m forret al i at or y l i t i gat i on w as bar r ed byt he I ndi vi dual A p p ell ee s’F i rst A m en d m en t ri gh t of a cces s to the cou rts. Itrea son ed tha t B ill Jo h n s o n ’s requi red t h e d efen da n t s to show tha ttheirl aw sui t s w ere m eri t ori ou s, w h i ch they fai l ed to do, w h i l e B E& K r equi r ed t hat B r yant sho w t hat def endant s’l aw sui t s w er e “ obj ec t ivel y base l es s. ” A ppl yi ng B E& K, t h e di st ri ct c o ur tg r ant e d s um m ar y j udg m e nt, c o nc l udi ng t hatBr ya ntdi d no ts ho w t hatt he l i ti ga ti on w a s “ob j ectively b a seless.” B r y a n t v . Mis s . Mil it a r

y D e p ’t , 5 69 F. Supp
. 2 d 6 8 0 , 6 8 2 (S .D
. M iss
. 2 0 0 8 ) ( “B rya n t III ”). T h e F i rstA m en dm en tof the federalC on st i t u t i on gu aran t ees t h e ri gh tof
a c c e s s t o t h e c o u r ts t o p e tit io n fo rr e d r e s s o f g r ie v a n c e s . Cal. Mot or Tran sp. Co. v . Tr u c k ingUn lim ite d, 404 U
. S
. 508 , 510 ( 197 2)
. W e ha ve f ou n d n o case ad dressi n g t h e i n t ersec t i on of t h e ri gh tt o peti t i on w i t h § 1985 ( 1) ’ s prohibi t i on on conspi raci es t o i n t erf ere w i t h a federalof f i cer’ s di scharge o f h i s du t i es. B ecau se t h e contours of F i rstA m en dm en t peti t i on i n g j u ri sprud en ce hav e been l argel y f

l eshed out i n t h e an t i t rust an d l abor context , w e t u rn to t h e se cases . T h e Noerr - Penn i ngt on do c t r i ne ho l ds t hatt he r i ghtt o pe t i t i o n t he g o ve r nm e nt f o rr e dr e s s i s g e ne r al l y i m m une f r o m a nt i t r us tl i ab i l i t y unl e s s t he pe t i t i o ni ng a ctivity i s a “sh a m . ” S ee Un i t ed Mi n e W o rk ers v. Penn i ngt on , 381 U
. S. 657 (1 9 6 5 ); E
. R
. R
. Pres i d ents Conf ere n ce v. Noerr Mot or Freigh t, I n c. , 365 U
. S. 127, 14 4 ( 19 61 )
. “ Bas e l e s s l i t i ga t i o n i s noti m m uni z e d b y t he Fi r s tAm e ndm e ntr i ght Case: 09-60182 Document: 00511028579 Page: 13 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 09- 60182

14 to p eti ti on . ” B il l Jo h n s o n ’s , 4 6 1 U .S . a t 7 4 3
. B u t d e te r m in in gw h a t lit ig a tio n is “sh a m ” or “ba seless” r eq u i res th e d ra w i n g o f a “dif fi cu l t l i n e” to sep a ra te o b je c tiv e lyre a s o n a b le cla im s fr o m a “p a tt e r n o f b a s e le s s , re p e tit iv e cla i m s . . . w hi c h l eads t he fac t f i ndert o c on cl u d e t hatt he adm i ni st r at ive and j udi c i al p r oce sse s h a ve be en ab u sed
. ” Cal
. Mo t o rTr ans p. , 4 0 4 U
. S
. at 51 3
. In Prof ess i on al R ealEst ateI n vest ors, I

n c. v. Col u m bi a P i ct u res I n d u st ri es , t he Su pre m e Courthel d t hat“ an obj ec t ivel y r eas onabl e e f f or tt o l i t i gat e c annotbe
s h a m r e g a r d l e s s o f

s u b j e c t i v e i n t e n t
. ” 5 0 8 U
. S
. 4 9 , 5 7 ( 1 9 9 3 )
. T h e S u p r e me C our tenunci at ed a t w o- par tt es tf ors ham l i t i gat i on: ( 1) “ t he l aw sui t m u stbe
o b je c tiv e lyb a s e le s s in th e s e n s e th a t n o re a s o n a b le litig a n t c o u ld re a lis tic a lly
e x p ect su cces s on th e m erits, ” a n d (2) “on l y i f th e cha l l en ge d l i ti ga ti on is
o bj e c t ive l y m e r i t l e s s m aya co ur te xa m i ne t he l i t i ga nt ’ s s ubj e c t ive m o t iva t i o n” t o d e t erm i n e “ w h et h er t h e basel ess l aw sui tconceal s ‘ an att em pt t o i n t erf ere d ire ctly w i t h t he b us i ne s s r e l at i o ns hi ps o f a c o m pe t i t o r , ’t hr o ugh t he ‘ us e [ o f ] t he g o v e r n m e n ta l proces s a s opposed t o t h e o u t c o me . ’” I d. a t 6 0

– 6 1 (e m p h a s is in
o r i gi nal) (c i t at i o ns o m i t t ed). T he pl ai nt i f f b e ar s t he b ur de n t o di s pr o ve t he
c hal l e nge d l awsui t ’ s l e ga lv i abil i t y be f o r e s ubj e c t ive i nt e ntc an be c o ns i de r e d. I d. T h i s test l oo k s a t ob j ective m erit a t th e ou tset, n ot w h eth e r th e cla im
u ltim a te lyp r e v a ile d
. I d. at61 n. 5. The Supr e m e Cour tha s dr awn t he c o nt ou rs o f t he Fi r s tAm e ndm e nt pe t i t i o n r i ght s o m e w hat di f fe r e nt l y i n t he l ab o rl aw c o nt e xt
. I n B il l Jo h n s o n ’s , t he c as e o n w hi c h t he di st r i c t c our t ’ s Jul y 2007 deni al of sum m ar y j udgm entw as based , t h e N L R B enj oi n ed an em pl oyer f rom sui n g pi cketi n g e m pl oyees f or de fam at i o n o n t he gr o und t hatt he e m pl o ye r ’ s s ui tc o ns t i t ut e d ar e t al i at o r y and
u n fa irla b o rp r a c tic e in v io la tio n o f th e N a tio n a l L a b o r R e l a t i o n s A c t. B ill Jo h n s o n ’s , 4 6 1 U .S
. a t 7 3 3

– 3 5
. B il l Jo h n s o n ’s de ve l op ed tw o tests for m erit, d e p e n d in go n th e s ta g e o f th e litig a tio n a t w h ic h th e m e r it o f th e ca s e is
ass e s s e d. As t o w he t he r t he N LR B c o ul d e nj o i n an o ngo i ng s ui t , t he C ou rt Case: 09-60182 Document: 00511028579 Page: 14 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 09- 60182

15 a d o p te d th e te s t fo rs u m m a r yju d g m e n t, i.e
. w h eth er th e law su i t pre sen ts “ a gen u i n e i ssue of m ater i al fact
. ” If so, as i n t h e case of B i l l Joh n son’ s s u i tagainst th e p ic k e tin ge m p lo y e e s , t h e n th e s u it c o u ld n o t b e e njo in e d
. Idat744–45 &
n. 11
. I n di c t a, t he Cour ts pe l l e d ou t a second t e s tt o b e a ppl i e d o nc e t he
u n d e r ly in glitig a tio n is co m p le te d
. I f t he em pl oye r ’ s c as e . . . ul t i m at el y pr ove s m er i t or i ous and he has ju d g m e n t a g a in s t t h e e m p lo y e e s , th e e m p lo y e rs h o u ld p r e v a il .
. . becaus e t he f

i l i ng o f a m e r i t o r i o us l aw s ui t , e ve n f o ra r e t al i at ory m o t ive , i s no ta n unfai rl ab o rpr ac t i c e . I f j udg m e ntg o e s a ga i ns tt he em pl oye r. . . ori f

hi s sui ti s w i t hdraw n ori s ot her w i se s how n t o b e w i t h ou t m eri t , t h e em pl oyer ha s had i t s day i n court , t h e i n t erestof t he s t at e i n pr o vi di ng a f o r um f o ri t s ci t i zens h as b e e n v i ndi c at e d, an d the B oard m ay then proceed t o adj u di cat e t h e . . . un fai r l abor pr ac t i c e c as e . The e m pl o ye r ’ s s ui tha vi ng pr o ve d un m e r i t o r i o us , t he B o a r d w o u ld b e w a r r a n te d in ta k in gth a t fa c t in to a c c o u n t in de t e r m i ni ng w he t he rt he s ui tha d b e e n f i l e d i n r e t al i at i o n. Idat 747
. In a dep art u re f rom t h e Pr ofe s s io n a l R e a l E s ta te I n v e s to r ’s “o b je c tiv e ly b a s e le s s ” t e s t, B i l lJoh n son’ s eq u a ted “m eritori ou s” su i ts w i th
w in n in ga n d “u n m e r ito r io u s ” w ith s u its t h a t d id n o t p r e v a il. Se ei d. T h u s , t wo di f fer e n t stan da rds def i n i n g t h e contours of F i rstA m en dm en tprot ect i on f or peti t i on i n g act ivi t y exi st : un der Prof ess i on al R ealEst ateI n vest ors t h e l i t i gati on m u s t b e fo u n d “o b je c tiv e lyb a s e le s s ” b e fo r e s u b je c tiv e in te n t is co n s id e r e d , w h ile
u n der B il l Jo h n s o n ’s , a r e vi e w i ng c o ur tm us tsi m pl y l o o k t o w he t he rt he l i t i ga nt
w o n o rlo s t t h e s u it t o d e te r m in e w h e th e rit w a s “m e r ito r io u s .” The Supr e m e Cour t ’ s gran t of c e r t i o r ar ii n B E& K po i sed the C ou rt t o cl ari f y w h et h er t h e “ obj ect ivel y basel ess” or w i n - l ose t estshou l d be the st an da rd f or det erm i n i n g w h a t p e t i t i on i n g act ivi t y i s and i s not protec t ed by t h e F i rst A m en dm en t
. Th e C ou rtw as t o deter m i n e w h eth e r th e N L R B un der B ill Joh n son’

s w i n - l ose t estcoul d p en al i ze em pl oyers w h o, f or a ret al i ator y pu rpose, file d b u t lo s t o b je c tiv e lyre a s o n a b le s u its
. S ee B E& K Con st r. Co. , 536 U
. S. 516. B u t t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t d id n o t u ltim a te lya n s w e rth a t q u e s tio n . R a th e r , it Case: 09-60182 Document: 00511028579 Page: 15 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 09- 60182

Although the district court cited to BE &K Const ruct ion , which we fin d in applicab le, 9 itactu allyapp liedth e “obj ectivelyb a sele ss”st an dardof Professional Real E stateI nvestors . 16 is s u e d a n a r r o w h o ld in gth a t t h e N L R B in c o r r e c tly in te r p r e te d th e N L R Ain order t o pu n i sh su i t s as “ ret al i ator y” even t h ou gh t h ey m ay h ave been f i l ed f or a le g itim a te p u r p o s e . I d. at 536
. T h e C ou rt i ssued t h i s narrow hol di n g rat h er t han ad dr e s s t he c o ns t i t ut i o nalq ue s t i o n b e c aus e i tde t e r m i ne d t hatt he pe t i t i o ni ng ac t ivi t y ati s s ue w as t he “ c l as s of re as o nab l y ba s e d butuns uc c e s s f ul l a w su i ts. ” Se ei d. a t5 31. B ecau se the sui t s w ere “r eason ably ba sed, ” the C ou rt coul d l i m i ti t s c on si derati on t o t h e ext en t t o w h i ch t h e N L R B coul d p en al i ze such sui t s und ert he N LR Aw h i c h pro hibi t s “ i nt er fer i ng, r es t r ai ni ng, orc oe r c i ng”
e m p lo y e e s in th e e x e r c is e o f r ig h ts g u a r a n te e d in [th e N L R A ]. Ida t536
. H ere, th e r e is n o p e n d in gca u s e o f a c tio n u n d e rth e N L R A
. T h u s , BE & K does n ot a n sw er th e q u estion of w h i ch test, P ro fes sional R ealEst ateI n vest ors or B ill Jo h n s o n ’s , sh o u ld be ap pl i ed i n t h e f i rsti n st an ce. N or does BE & K de c i de
w h e th e ra litig a n t m a yb e lia b le fo rb r in g in ga n “u n s u c c e s s fu l b u t r e a s o n a b ly b a sed su i t[] th a t w ou l d n ot h a ve be en f i l ed bu t f

or a m oti ve to i m p ose th e cos ts o f th e litig a tio n p r o c e s s , re g a r d le s s o f th e o u tc o m e , in re ta lia ti o n fo r . . . p rotecte d activi ty. ” I d. at537. A cc o rd in g ly, w e fi n d th e n a rr o w h o ld in gof B E& K inap posi t e to the i ssues r a is e d in th is ca s e . R a th e r , t h e s ta n d a r d to b e a p p lie d to th e a lle g e d ly ret al i ator y l i t i gati on i s t h e Prof ess i on al R ealEst ateI n vest ors t es t , r equi r i ng a f i ndi ng t hatthe pet i t i oni ng ac t ivi t y i s “ obj ec t ivel y bas el es s, ” be f or e s ubj ec t ive i nt e nti s c o ns i de r e d. Thi s t e s t , r at he rt han B il l Jo h n s o n ’s , ha s been extend ed 9
ou t si de the area of

an t i t rust t o ot h er c on t exts an d w e f i n d i tapp ropri ate here. B ry a n t con ten d s th a t t h e d i stri ct cou rt i n corre ctl y p la c e d t h e b u rd en to s h o w th e s u its w e r e o b je c tiv e lyb a s e le s s o n h im
. T h e b u r d e n to s h o w th a t a s u it i s obj e c t ive l y ba s e l e s s i s o n t he pl ai nt i f f w ho s e e ks t o s ho w t hatt he s ui ti s not d e s e r v in go f F ir s t A m e n d m e n t p r o te c tio n . S ee Prof’lR ealEst ateI n vest ors , 508 Case: 09-60182 Document: 00511028579 Page: 16 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 09- 60182

17 U
. S. at60–61. H er e, t he I ndi vi dualA ppel l ee s m ove d f ors um m ar y j ud gm en t, an d thu s w ere r equ i red t o of fer evi de n ce tha tt h e l aw sui t s t h ey f i l ed w ere not

“ o bj e c t ive l y ba s e l e s s , ” t hati s , no ta l awsuiti n whi ch “ n o reas o nab l e l i t i ga nt cou l d re a l i sti ca l l y e xp ect su cces s on the m erits. ” Id
. at49. O nce t hey m ade t hat sh o w i n g, t h e bu rden w as properl y on B ryan tas t h e non - m ovi n g pa rt y t o of fer ev i d en ce sh ow i n g a g e n u i n e issu e of m a terialfa ct as to w h eth er th e law su i ts
w e r e “ o bj e c t ive l y ba s e l e s s . ” As di s c us s e d b e l o w , t h e d i s t r i c tc o ur tc o r r e c t l y f o und t hatBr ya ntdi d no tm e e tt hi s b ur de n. O ne of the I ndi vi dualA ppel l ee ’ s l aw sui t s al l ege d s l ander , i nt ent i onal i n fl i cti on of em oti on a ldis tress, a n d fa l seh oo d s/trad e lib el ba sed on com m en ts t h at B ryan tm ad e i n a r a d io t al k sh ow an d va ri ou s new spap er and ot h er p u b lic a tio n s a b o u t t h e le a d e r s h ip o f th e M S A N G u n it. T o s h o w th a t t h e la w s u it
w as not“ obj ec t ivel y base l es s, ” the I ndi vi dualA ppel l ee s poi nt ed t o e vi denc e t hat Bry antha d e nga ge d i n a m e di a c am pa i gn i n w hi c h he l e ak e d t o t he m e di a a c o py o f a n I n spect o rG e ne r al ’ s r e po r ts ubs t ant i at i ng s o m e o f Br ya nt ’ s a l l e ga t i o ns aga i n stvari ou s M S A N G of f i ci al s, com m en t ed i n a ser i es of new spap er s t ori es abouthi s al l egat i ons , an d app ear ed on a radi o t al k sho w i n w hi c h he s ai d t hat t he M SAN G l e ad e r s hi p w as “ c o r r upt , ” “ hadbl o o d on t he i rha nds , ” a nd “ r an t he
u n it lik e th e m a fia .” B r y a n t c o n te n d e d th a t t h e la w s u it w a s “o b j e c t iv e ly b a s e le s s ” b e c a u s e h e h a d n o t n a m e d n a m e s o n th e r a d io ta lk s h o w . B u t t h is is i n su ff i ci en t. U nder M i ss i ss i ppil aw , s l anderr equi r es pr oo f of: ( 1) a fal se s t at em entt hat h as t h e capaci t y t o i nj u re t h e pl ai n t i f f ’ s r epu t ati on ; ( 2) an un pri vi l eged p u b lic a tio n , i. e ., c o m m u n ic a tio n to a th ir d p a r ty ; (3 ) n e g lig e n c e o rg r e a te rfa u lt on t he par tof

t he publ i she r ; and ( 4) ei t herac t i onabi l i t y i r r es pecti ve of s pec i al h a r m o re x is te n c e o f s p e c ia l h a r m ca u s e d b yp u b lic a tio n . S p ee dv. S co tt , 787 So. 2d 626 , 631 ( ¶21 ) (M i ss. 200 1)
. In respond i n g t o t h e Indivi du al A pp el l ees’f i rst s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t m o tio n , B r y a n t cla im e d th a t h is s ta te m e n ts w e r e a b s o lu te ly Case: 09-60182 Document: 00511028579 Page: 17 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 09- 60182

18 t rue a nd t he di s t r i c tc o ur tde c l i ne d t o g r ants um m ar y j udg m e ntb e cau se de fe nda nt s o f

fe r e d n o e v i d e n c e t h a tt h e ywe r e fa l s e . I ta p p e a r s t h a tt o t he
e xt e ntt he s l and e rl awsui tw as bas e d on s t at e m e nt s abo uta ny o f t he a l l e ga t i o ns t hatw ere su bst ant i at e d i n t he I ns pe c t o rG e ne r al ’ s r e po r t , t he r e c o ul d b e no r e as o nab l e e xp e c t at i o n o f pr o vi ng fal s i t y. Bu t com m ent s t o t he e f fe c tt hatt he l e ad e r s hi p was “ c o r r upt , ” “ hadb l o o d o n t he i r hand s , ” and “ r an t he uni tl i ke t he
m af i a” ar e s ubj ec t ive, and t he ques t i on o f fal si t y i s a c l os erone s u ch th a t a reasona bl e l i t i gan tm i gh treal i st i cal l y e x p e ct t o prove fal si t y. M oreover, even t h ou gh B ryan tha d n otna m ed n am es, t h ere w as am pl e pu bl i c i n f orm ati on as a r es ul tof

t he l eake d I nspec t orG ener al ’ s r epo r t and ot her m edi a st or i es s uch t hat Bry ant ’ s c o m m e nt s a bo utt he “ l e ad e r s hi p” c o ul d b e und e r s t o o d t o r e fe r to t he i n d iv i d u a l s w h o f

i l e d s u i ta g a i n s th i m. Indivi du alA pp el l ees al so argued t h at t w o sep arate m al i ci ou s prosec u t i on sui t s f i l ed agai nst B r yant w er e not “ obj ec t ivel y bas el es s. ” B r yantf i l ed c r i m i nal
assau l tcl ai m s agai n stI n di vi du alA pp el l ees Tem pl e an d W i l k e s th at w ere di sm i ssed af

t er B ryan t ’ s presentat i on of evi den ce. T em pl e an d W i l kes then each f i l e d m al i c i o us pr o s e c ut i o n s ui t s ag ai n stBr ya nt
. Br ya ntfai l e d t o o f fe ra ny e v i d e n c e t h a tt h e s e s u i t s we r e o b j e c t iv e l yb a s e l e s s a tt h e i ri n c e p t i o n , n o rc a n we s ayt hatt he y w e r e o n t he r e c o r d be f o r e us . U nde rM i s s i s s i ppil aw, a m al i c i o us prosecuti on cl ai m requi res t h at the pl ai n t i f f p rove: (1) the i n st i t u t i on of civi lor c r i m i nalpr o c e e di ngs b y t he de fe nda nt ; ( 2) t e r m i nat i o n o f t he pr o c e e di ngs i n t he p la in tiff

’ s fa v o r ; (3 ) m a lic e in in s tit u tin gth e p r o c e e d in g s ; ( 4 ) w a n t o f p r o b a b le
c a u s e ; a n d (5 ) d a m a g e s . S ee Tri log y C om m c’

n s, I n c v. Ti m es Fi ber Com m c’ n s, Inc. , 4 7 F . S u p p . 2 d 7 7 4 , 7 7 8 (S .D . M is s . 1 9 9 8 ); s e e als o Mo o n v . Conde r eCor p. , 6 9 0 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 1 , 1 1 9 4 (M is s . 1 9 9 7 ). Are a s o n a b le litig a n t c o u ld e x p e c t t o b e a b le t o s h o w “w a n to f

p r o b a b le c a u s e ” b a s e d o n th e c o u r t ’s d is m is s a l o f B r y a n t ’s
as s aul tc l ai m s w i t ho utco ns i de r i ng any t hi ng o t he rt han Bry ant ’ s e vi de nc e a nd
ar gum e nt
. Si m i l ar l y, a r e as o nab l e l i t i ga ntm i ghtex pe c tt o s uc c e e d i n s ho w i ng Case: 09-60182 Document: 00511028579 Page: 18 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 09- 60182

19 “m a lic e ” b yp o in tin gto B r y a n t’s m ed i acam p a ig n a g a in s t t h e M S A N G le a d e r s h ip
a n d w e l l

- d o c u me n t e d c o mme n t s t h a th e w a s “ a f t e r” t h e m. T h e s a me i s t r u e o f

t h e v a r i o u s i n v a s i o n o f p r iv a c yl a w s u i t s t h a ts o me Indivi du alA pp el l ees f i l ed ag ai n stB ryan tb as e d on B ryan t ’ s l eak of t h e I n spect or G e ne r al ’ s c o nf

i de nt i alr e po r tt o l o c alnewsp ap e r s . M i s s i s s i ppire c o gni z e s a r i ght
o f a c tio n fo rin v a s io n o f p r iv a c yb a s e d o n p u b lic d is c lo s u r e o f p r iv a te fa c ts
. S ee Y ou ng v. Ja ckson , 5 7 2 S o . 2 d 3 7 8 , 3 8 1

– 8 2 (M is s . 1 9 9 0 ). T h e I n s p e c t o rG e n e r a l’s rep ort w a s con fi d en ti a la n d p rotecte d by the P ri va cyA ct; B ry a n t w a s tol d n ot to di sc l o s e i t s c o nt e nt s . ButBr ya ntg av e a c o pyo f t he r e po r tt o t w o new spap ers th a t t h e n p u b lic iz e d th e in fo r m a tio n . Are a s o n a b le litig a n t c o u ld re a lis tic a lly
e xp e c t t o p r e v a i l o n t h e s e fa c t s . M o r e v e r , Br y a n t a g a i n fa i l e d t o o f fe r a ny evi den ce t h at t h ese sui t s w ere obj ect ivel y basel ess, ot h er t h an t o argu e t h at t h ey w ere not prosecuted or w ere di sm i ssed. B u tt h i s argu m en tp u t s t h e cartbef ore t he hor se . The Su pre m e C our t has m ade c l ear t hat w e ar e t o t es t t he o bj ec t ive m e r it a t t h e o u ts e t, n o t w h e th e rth e cla im u ltim a te lyp r e v a ile d
. Pr of’lRea l Est ateI n vest ors , 508 U .S . a t61 n
. 5. B ecau se w e cann otsay t h at any of t h ese l aw sui t s w e r e o bj e c t ive l y ba s e l e s s w he n i ni t i at e d, w e w i l lno tc o ns i de rt he d e fe n d a n ts ’s u b je c tiv e in te n t in filin gth e la w s u its
. S ee id
. at60–61. N on et h el ess, B ryan tveh em en t l y argu es t h at w e m u stconsi der evi den ce t h at t h e sol e pu rpose i n f i l i n g th e se la w sui t s w as t o si l en ce hi s c om pl ai n t s of
w r ongdoi ng and m i sde eds c om m i t t ed byt he M SA N G of f i c i al s. W hi l e w e have determ i n ed that t h ese l aw sui t s, al lof w h i ch w ere un successf u l , w ere not obj ec t ivel y bas el es s, t he Su pre m e C our t has l ef tope n t he ques t i on w het heran

“ uns uc c e s s f

ulb ut r e as o nab l y ba s e d s ui t
. . . t hat w o ul d no tha ve b e e n f i l e d b ut f o ra m o t ive t o i m po s e t he c o s t s o f t he l i t i ga t i on p roces s, r e ga r dl e s s o f t he
o u tc o m e ” m ig h t n o t b e p r o te c te d b yth e F i r s t A m e n d m e n t. B E& K, 5 36 U
. S. 537
. A tt h i s j u n ct u re, such p et i t i on i n g act ivi t y i s prot ect ed u n der Pr of e s s i o nal R ealEst ateI

n vest ors and B E& K
. W e cann ot say w h et h er t h e Su prem e C ou rt Case: 09-60182 Document: 00511028579 Page: 19 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 09- 60182

20 w i l l , at som e futu re p oin t, de term i n e oth erw i se. W e h a ve pr ev i ou sly de cl i n ed to c r e a te a “r e ta lia to r yin te n t” e x c e p tio n a n d w e r e a ffir m th a t v ie w to d a y . S ee B ayou Fleet, I

n c v. A lexan d er , 23 4 F
. 3 d 85 2 , 86 2 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 0 ) ( d ecli n i n g to c r eat e a n exc ept i on t o Fi r st A m endm ent pro t ec t i on f orpet i t i oni ng ac t ivi t y t hat is n o t ob jec tiv e ly b a se les s, b u t u n d e rta k e n w ith a “re ta li a to ry in te n t”). F i n al l y, B ryan tcontends that w e shou l d fin d the Indivi du alA pp el l ees’ vari ou s l aw sui t s outs i de the bou n ds of F i rstA m en dm en tpr o t e c t i o n b e c aus e t hey
ar e “ i l l e ga l” i n t hat t he y vi o l at e t he pr o s c r i pt i o n a ga i ns tr e t al i at i o n f o und i n t he M i l i t ary W h i st l ebl ow er A ctan d 42 U
. S
. C
. §§ 1985 ( 1) an d 19 86. B ryan tal so a r g u e s t h a tt h e “ o b j e c t iv e l yb a s e l e s s ” s t a n d a r d o u g h tt o b e a p p l i e d i n s o me d i ff ere n t, a n d p resu m a b l y fav ora b l e w a y i n th i s ca se b eca u se m u l ti p l e law su i ts
w e r e f i l e d a ga i ns thi m . But B r ya ntm ad e nei t he rof t he s e a r gum e nt s b e f o r e t he d is tr ic t c o u r t a n d b e c a u s e h e fa ile d to d o s o , w e w ill n o t c o n s id e rth e m n o w . S ee P l u etv. Frasi er , 355 F
. 3d 381 , 384 –85 ( 5th C i r. 200 4)
. B ecau se B ryan tdi d n ot c a r r yh is b u r d e n to s h o w t h a t th e a lle g e d lyr e ta lia to r ylit ig a tio n w a s o b je c tiv e ly ba s e l e s s a tt he o ut s e t , w i t ho utc o ns i de r at i o n o f s ubj e c t ive i nt e nt , w e a f f i r m t he di st ri ctcourt ’ s gran t of sum m ary j u dg m en tas t o B ryan t ’ s § 198 5( 1) ret al i ator y l i t i gati on cl ai m s. VI M SAN G c r o s s - ap pe al s t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de ni alo f i t s m o t i o n f

o rs anc t i o ns u n d er R u l e 1 1 , 28 U
. S
. C
. § 19 2 7 an d the M i ssissi p p iL i ti ga ti on A ccou n tab i l i ty A c t, M IS S . C ODE A NN . § 1 1- 55- 1 e ts e q. T h e d i st ri ctcourtden i ed the m ot i on f or s a n c t io n s in a fo o t n o t e , s t a t in gth a titw a s “n o tp e r s u a d e d th a tB r y a n t ’s
com p l a i n t a ga i n st M S A N G w a s f ri vo l ou s. ” B ry a n t I, 381 F. Supp. 2d at594 n. 12. T h i s c ou rtrevie w s a dis t ri ctcourt ’ s den i alof sancti on s f

or abu se of d is c r e tio n . T

e s tMast e r s E duc. Ser vs . , I nc. v. Si ngh , 428 F
. 3d 5 59, 582 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). W e u su a l l y re q u i re a t l ea st a b ri ef s ta te m e n t o f rea son s i n ord er to c o n d u c t a m e a n in g fu l re v ie w . See , e . g. , Copel an dv. W asserst ei n , Pere l la & Co. , Case: 09-60182 Document: 00511028579 Page: 20 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 09- 60182

21 2 7 8 F .3 d 4 7 2 , 4 8 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ); S chw arz v. F ol lod er , 76 7 F
. 2 d 12 5 , 13 3

– 3 4 ( 5 th C i r. 198 5)
. A l t h ou gh the di st ri ctcou rtd i d n ota rt i cul ate an y speci f i c r eason s f

or i t s d ecisi on , w e no net hel es s f i nd no abuse of

di sc r et i on. Sanct i ons under 28 U
. S
. C
. § 1927 are pu n i t ive i n na t u re and requi re “ cl ear an d conv i n ci n g evi den ce, th a t ever

y f acetof t he l i t i gat i on w as pat ent l y m er i t l es s” and “ evi denc e o f bad fa ith , i m p rop er m oti ve , or reck l ess disreg a rd of th e d u ty ow ed to t h e cou rt” Pr o c t o r& G am bleCo. v . Am w ay Cor p. , 280 F. 3d 519, 525–26 ( 5t h C i r . 2002) (em p h a sis in o r i gin a l). S u ch san cti on s m a y o n l y b e a w a rd ed i f a pa rty

“ m ul t i pl i es t he pr oc ee di ngs . . . unre as onabl y and ve xat i ous l y, ” a s t andard t hat fo c u s e s o n th e c o n d u c t o f th e litig a tio n a n d n o t o n th e m e r its
. Se eRel igi o us T ech. C t r. v. L i ebrei ch , 9 8 F. App’ x 97 9, 9 83 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 4) (unpub l i s he d)
. I n o ur r e vi e w o f

t he r e c o r d, w e s e e no t hi ng t o s ugg e s t

— l e ta l o ne c l e ara nd c o nvi nc i ng e v id e n c e — th a t s a n c tio n s w o u ld b e a p p r o p r ia te u n d e rt h is s ta n d a r d
. A n d , w h ile R u l e 11 h as a l ow er s t an da rd of cul pa bi l i t y t h an § 192 7, “an abu se of di scr et i on onl y o c c urs w her e no r eas onabl e per so n c oul d take the vi ew adopt ed byt he t r i al
cou rt. ” Be r q u i s t v . FyBX C o r p. , 108 F. A pp’ x 903, 904 ( 5t h C i r . 2004) (unp ubl i she d) ( af

f i r m i ng deni alof

R ul e 1 1 s anct i ons on t he vi ew thatther e w as n o “ im p r o p e r p u r p o s e ” u n d e r ly in g t h e c o m p la in t). T h is c a s e , d e s p i t e B r y a n t ’s l osi n g, i s not t ot al l y m eri t l ess an d w e see n o evi den ce of an im p ro per pu rpose. A ccor di n gl y, w e af

f i rm t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s den i alof sancti on s. V II F o rth e fo r e g o in gr e a s o n s , w e A F F IR M th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f a ll cl ai m s agai n stM S A N G a n d t h e In di vi du alA pp el l ees i n t h ei r of f i ci alcapaci t i es an d i t s t w o separate gr an t s of sum m ary j u dg m en t i n t h e I n di vi du alA pp el l ees’ favor. O n cr oss- ap pea l , w e A F F IR M t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s s anc t i o ns de c i s i o n. Case: 09-60182 Document: 00511028579 Page: 21 Date Filed: 02/17/2010