T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T RYAN COUCH; KENN ET H J I M ENEZ ; BA RN A BE TO RRES, P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l an t s, v. MA T T H E W C A T E ; D A V I D S H A W; J E AN NE S . WOOD F OR D; J OH N D O V E Y ; S C O T T K E RN A N ; M A R T IN HO SHI NO ; TOM M Y W AN ; KI M BE RL I BONCORE; RALP H D I AZ; KENN ET H CLA RK ; K A TH Y A LLI SO N ; J A CK H U TCH I N S, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 15599 D. C. No . 1 : 0 8 - c v - 0 1 6 2 1 - LJ O- DLB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia L a w r e nc e J . O ’ N e i l l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry12, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia 

# FI LED MA Y14 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he H onor abl e T hom a s S . Z i l l y , S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge ** f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on, s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. C o u ch an d Ji m en ez’ s § 1 9 8 3 free sp eech ret al i at i o n cl ai m s ag ai n st 1 A s s o c ia te W a r d e n T o m m yW a n s u rv iv e dth e d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n to d is m is s a n dis n o t a t is s u e in th is ap p e a l. W e a gree w i th the di stri ctcourtthatthe E l eventh A m endm entdo es no tbar 2 r e lie f a s to a n yo f

th e c la im s a s s e rte db yC o u c h , J im e n e z , o rT o rr e s . 2 B e f o r e : HA L L , Mc KE OWN, C i r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n dZ I L L Y, S eni or D i stri ctJudg e. ** O f f i c e r s C ouc h, J i m e ne z , a nd T orr e s , a l l c orr e c t i ons of f i c e r s a tthe C a l i f orni aD e pa rtm e ntof

C orr e c t i ons a nd R e habi l i t a t i on ( “ C D C R ” ) , appe a l f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s R ul e 12( b) ( 6) di s m i s s a l of the i rtw o c aus e s of

a c t i on unde r42 U . S . C . § 1983 a nd the i rpr i va t e c i vi l c aus e of a c t i on unde r18 U . S . C . § 1964( c ) of the R a c ke t e e r - I nf

l ue nc e d C orruptO r ga ni z a t i ons A c t( “ R I C O ” ) a ga i ns ttw e l ve de f e nda nt s , a l l e m pl oy e e s i n e i the rthe C D C R pr i s on m a na ge m e ntorthe

1 C a l i f orni aO f f i c e of the I ns pe c t orG e ne r a l . W e a f f i rm i n pa rta nd r e ve r s e a nd r e m a n d in p a rt. 2 I. S ECTIO N 1983 F IRST A MENDM ENT C L A I MS W e a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s m i s s a l w i th pr e j udi c e of C ouc h’ s a nd Ji m enez ’ s § 19 83 F i rs tA m endm entcl ai m s a gai nstal l defe nd ant s other than In v est i g at o r B o n co re an d A sso ci at e W ard en D i az. A s t o C o u ch ’ s an dJi m en ez’ s3

§ 1983 F i r s tA m e ndm e ntc l a i m s a ga i ns tB onc or e a nd D i a z , w e r e ve r s e the di s m i s s a l w i th pr e

j udi c e a nd r e m a nd w i th i ns truc t i ons t o gr a ntl e a ve t o a m e nd. N o n e o f th e p art i es d i scu ssed a sem i n al S u p rem e C o u rtcase l i m i t i n g F i rst A m e ndm e ntpr ot e c t i on f orpubl i c e m pl oy e e s , nordi d a nya ddr e s s s ubs e que nt N i n th Ci r c u i tc a s e s d i s c u s s i n g th i s l i mi t a t i o n . Se e G a r c e tt i v . Ce b a l l o s , 5 4 7 U . S. 410 ( 2006) ; s e e , e . g. , E ng v. C ool e y , 552 F . 3d 1062 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ; R obi ns on v. Y ork, 566 F . 3d 817 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ; P os e yv. L a ke P e nd O r e i l l e S c hool D i s t . N o. 8 4 , 5 4 6 F .3 d 1 1 2 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ; F r e ita g v . A y e r s , 4 6 8 F .3 d5 2 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . A s the S upr e m e C ourts t a t e d i n C e ba l l os , “ w he n publ i c e m pl oy e e s m a ke st at em ent s pursuantt o thei r off i ci al du t i es , the em pl oyee s are no tspeaki ng as c itiz e n s f o rF ir s t A m e n d m e n t p u rp o s e s , a n dth e C o n s titu tio n d o e s n o t in s u la te th e ir c o m m u n ic a tio n s f

r o m e m p lo y e rd is c ip lin e .” C e b a llo s , 5 4 7 U .S . a t 4 2 1 . O n the f a c e of the c om pl a i nt , the r e a r e i ns uf f i c i e ntf a c t s t o a s c e rt a i n the sc op e of C ou ch’ s and Ji m enez ’ s off i ci al du t i es as corr ec t i on al offi ce rs and w hether th e ym a d e th e v a r io u s s ta te m e n ts in th e irc ap a c itya s p r iv a te c itiz e n s o rp u b lic e m p lo y e e s u n d e rC e b a llo s . T o s a tis f yth is s te p o f

th e in q u irya g a in s t am o tio n to di sm i ss , C ou ch and Ji m enez w ou l d h ave t o p l ea d the offi ci al re spon si bi l i t i es of a corr ec t i on al offi ce r and i dent i fythe spee ch thatthey m ade i n thei r c apac i t i es as pri vat e c i t i ze ns (i . e. , ou t si de thei r off i ci al du t i es ). B ec ause C ou ch and Ji m enezT he thr e e pl a i nt i f f s di d notr e que s tl e a ve t o a m e nd the c om pl a i nta tthe 3 m ot i on t o di s m i s s pha s e , a nd the di s tr i c tc ourtpr e e m pt i ve l ys t a t e d i tw oul d not gr a nta nya tt e m ptt o do s o. W hi l e the de ni a l of l e a ve t o a m e nd i s r e vi e w e d f or abus e of di s c r e t i on, w e ha ve c ons i s t e nt l yhe l d tha t“ r e que s t s f orl e a ve s houl d be gr a nt e d w i th ‘ e xtr e m e l i be r a l i ty . ’ ” M os s v. U . S . S e c r e tS e rvi c e , 572 F . 3d 962, 972 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng M or ongo B a nd of M i s s i on I ndi a ns v. R os e , 893 F . 2d 1074, 1079 ( 9th C i r . 1990) ) . L e a ve t o a m e nd s houl d be gr a nt e d unl e s s upon de n o v o r e v ie w , it is ap p a r e n t th a t a n a m e n d m e n t w o u ldn o t s a v e th e c o m p la in t. P o l i ch , 9 4 2 F . 2 d at1 4 7 2 . A l th o u g h o u r h o l d i n g i n A l ask a v . U n i t ed S t at es, s u g g e s ts th a t ab s e n t c e rta in c ir c u m s ta n c e s , “w h e r e ap a rtyd idn o t s e e kle a v e to a m e n d ap le a d in g in th e lo w e rc o u rt, w e w o u ldn o t r e m a n dw ith in s tru c tio n s to grantl ea ve t o am end, ” 201 F . 3d 11 54 , 11 63 (9th C i r. 20 00 ), w e a l so st at ed i n L ee v. C i tyof

L os A nge l e s , tha t“ w e w i l l uphol d as uas pont e di s m i s s a l w i thoutl e a ve t o a m e nd onl yw he r e the pl a i nt i f f c a nnotpos s i bl yw i n r e l i e f . ” 250 F . 3d 668, 683 n. 7 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . H e r e , the pl a i nt i f f s di d nota l l e ge , a nd the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notappl y , the C e ba l l os rul e on sp ee ch b y p u b li c o ff

icials p ro tected b y th e F irst A m en d m en t. T h e d istrict co u rt’s s t a t e m e nttha ti tw oul d de nyl e a ve t o a m e nd w a s unde r s t a ndabl ynotl i nke d t o the p l au si b i l i ty o f p l ai n t i ffs’ cl ai m s u n d er C eb al l o s. 4 m ig h t b e ab le to a lle g e f a c ts th a t c o u ldc u r e th is d e f ic ie n c y , d is m is s a l o f

th e ir c l a i m s a ga i ns tB onc or e a nd D i a z w i thoutl e a ve t o a m e nd w a s i m pr ope r . P ol i c h v. B url i ng t on N orthern, Inc. , 94 2 F . 2d 14 67 , 14 72 (9th C i r. 19 91 ). 3 I ti s w e l l s e tt l e d tha tthe s t a t e m a ynotr e t a l i a t e a ga i ns ti t s e m pl oy e e s f or as se rt i ng “ F i rs tA m endm entri gh t s [ i t s e m pl oyee s] w ou l d o therw i se enj oy as c i t i z e ns t o c om m e nton m a tt e r s of publ i c i nt e r e s t . ” P i c ke r i ng v. B d. of E duc . , 391 U . S . 563, 568 ( 1968) . E ve n though B onc or e , a s ac orr e c t i ona l of f i c e r , m a ynot h ersel f h av e th e su p erv i so ry au th o ri ty t o effect an em p l o ym en tact i o n su ch as a transfe r, C ou ch and Ji m enez ’ s pl ea di ng of the fa ct s i nd i ca t es thatB on core “ w as5

a s s i gne d t o l e a d the I S U [ I nve s t i ga t i ve S e rvi c e s U ni t ] t e a m , ” a nd thus s he di d ha ve s o m e s u p e rv is o ryau th o r ityo v e rth e tw o o f f ic e r s , b o th o f

w h o m w o rk e din th e I S U . C o u c h a n d J im e n e z m a ya ls o b e ab le to p le a df a c ts to s u p p o rt th e ir r e ta lia tio n c la im s a g a in s t D ia z . C o u c h a n dJ im e n e z a lle g e th a t D ia z , in contravent i on of no rm al po l i cy , i nstruct ed C ou ch t o sho w an ac cuse d p ea ce keeper e vi de nc e i m pl i c a t i ng hi m i n ac ons pi r a c yt o c om m i tm ur de r , r e s ul t i ng i n athr e a ton C ouc h’ s l i f

e . T he ya l s o a l l e ge tha tD i a z t ol d a nothe rof f i c e rtha tC ouc h a nd Ji m enez w er e r em ov ed for “ do i ng thei r ow n i nv es t i gat i on s, ” w hi ch they un ders t oo d t o m ean thatA ss oci at e W ar dens D i az and W an deci ded t o rem ov e them fo r p ro secu t i n g p eacek eep ers. T h ese tw o p o t en t i al ad v erse em p l o ym en tact i o n s, c om bi ne d w i th D i a z ’ s s t a t e m e ntt o J i m e ne z tha the “ di dn’ tl i ke ” the pr e s e nc e of f e de r a l of f i c e r s a tthe pr i s on, w i th w hom C ouc h a nd J i m e ne z w e r e c oope r a t i ng, c o n s t i tu t e ap l au s i b l e a l l e g a t i o n th a tDi a z p e r s o n a l l yr e t a l i a t e da g a i n s tth e two of f i c e r s f orthe i rpr ot e c t e d s pe e c h. T h e s e a lle g e d a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n s a r e o n lyc o g n iz ab le , h o w e v e r , if they w er e don e i n ret al i at i on for pr ote c te d sp eech u n d er C eb al l o s. B ecau se am endm entof the F i rs tA m endm entcl ai m s m i gh tno tbe fut i l e w i th res pect B o n co re an d D i az, w e rem an d w i th i n stru ct i o n s t o al l o w l eav e t o am en das t o th o se tw o d efen d an t s.C o u ch an d Ji m en ez al so cl ai m th atA l l i so n an dC l arkare l i ab l e fo r F i rst 4 A m e ndm e ntr e t a l i a t i on ba s e d on the i rpe r s ona l c onduc t . B e c aus e the yc a nnot al l ege f ac t s thatcoul d p l ausi bl y s t at e acl ai m on thi s bas i s, w e a ff i rm the di stri ct court ’ s di sm i ss al of thi s c l ai m agai nstA l l i son and C l ark o n thi s l i abi l i ty theory w ith n o f u rth e rc o m m e n t. 6 H ow e ve r , di s m i s s a l w a s pr ope ra ga i ns tM a tthe w C a t e , D a vi d S ha w , J e a nne W oodf or d, J ohn D ove y , S c ottK e rna n, M art i n H os hi no, K e nne th C l a rk, K a thy A llis o n , a n d J a c kH u tc h in s . “B e c au s e v ic a r io u s liab ilityis in ap p lic ab le to . . . § 1 9 8 3 s u its , ap la in tif

f m u s t p le a dth a t e a c h G o v e rn m e n t- o f f ic ia l d e f e n d a n t, throu gh the offi ci al ’ s ow n i nd i vi du al ac t i on s, has vi ol at ed the C on st i tut i on . ” A shcr oftv. Iqbal , 12 9 S . C t . 19 37 , 19 48 (200 9). In pl ea di ng fa ct s t o sug gestea ch defe nd ant ’ s l i abi l i ty, C ou ch’ s and Ji m enez ’ s a l l egat i on s m ustbe m ore than

“ ‘ m erel y co n si st en tw i th ’ a d efen d an t ’ s l i ab i l i ty, ” b u trath er, th e co m p l ai n tm u st

“ pl ea d[] fa ctual cont entthatal l ow s the courtt o d raw the re as on abl e i nfer ence that th e d e f e n d a n t is liab le f

o rth e m is c o n d u c t a lle g e d .” I d . C ouc h a nd J i m e ne z c l a i m tha tC a t e , W oodf or d, D ove y , K e rna n, H os hi no, C l ark, A l l i son, and H ut chi ns ar e l i abl e bas ed on supervi soryl i abi l i ty, and that 4 ea ch of these ei gh tdefe nd ant s pl us S haw ar e a l so l i abl e bec ause they e ac h

“ c ons pi r e d w i th D e f

e nda ntW a n a nd w i th e a c h othe rt o c om m i tand c ove rup po t ent i al l y c ri m i nal cond uctand v i ol at i on s of C ou ch’ s and Ji m enez ’ s c i vi l ri gh t s. ” I n a§ 1983 c l a i m , “ as upe rvi s ori s l i abl e f orthe a c t s of

hi s s ubor di na t e s ‘ i f

the7

s upe rvi s orpa rt i c i pa t e d i n ordi r e c t e d the vi ol a t i ons , orkne w of the vi ol a t i ons of s u b o r d in a te s a n d f

a ile dto a c t to p r e v e n t th e m .’” P r e s c h o o le rI I v . C la rkC o u n ty S c h . B d . o f

T ru s te e s , 4 7 9 F .3 d 1 1 7 5 , 1 1 8 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( q u o tin g T a y lo rv . L is t, 880 F . 2d 1040, 1045 ( 9th C i r . 1989) ) . T o s how ac ons pi r a c ybe tw e e n the de f e nda nt s unde r§ 1983, pl a i nt i f f s m us ta l l e ge “ a n a gr e e m e ntor‘ m e e t i ng of the m i nds ’ t o vi ol a t e c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s . ” U ni t e d S t e e l w orke r s of A m e r i c av. P he l ps D odge C orp. , 865 F . 2d 1539, 1540- 41 ( 9th C i r . 1989) ( e n ba nc ) ( quot i ng F ondav. G r a y , 707 F . 2d 435, 438 ( 9th C i r . 1983) ) . “ T o be l i abl e , e a c h pa rt i c i pa nti n the conspi ra cyneed no tkn ow the exactdet ai l s of the pl an, bu tea ch part i ci pantm ustat le a s t s h a r e th e c o m m o n o b je c tiv e o f

th e c o n s p ir a c y .” I d . C ouc h a nd J i m e ne z a l l e ge tha tbe c aus e C a t e , W oodf or d, D ove y , K e rna n, H oshi no , C l ark, A l l i son, and H ut chi ns ar e i n the com m and chai n, they autho ri ze d ors houl d ha ve know n aboutthe a c t i ons of W a n, B onc or e , a nd D i a z . A l though they a l l ege afe w other f ac t s, C ou ch and Ji m enez have no tshow n thatthey c an a lle g e s u f

f ic ie n t f a c ts to c r e a te ap lau s ib le in f e r e n c e th a t th e s e d e f

e n d a n ts a r e liab le i n the i rs upe rvi s oryc apa c i tyf orc ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i ons a ga i ns tC ouc h a nd J im e n e z . S im ila r ly , C o u c h a n d J im e n e z c a n n o t a lle g e s u f f ic ie n t f a c ts to in d ic a te p l au si b l y th atan y o f th ese ei g h td efen d an t s o r S h aw co n sp i red t o v i o l at e th ei r F i rst A m endm entfr ee spee ch ri gh t s. T he di stri ctcourtthere fore prop er l y di sm i ss ed8

C ouc h’ s a nd J i m e ne z ’ s F i r s tA m e ndm e ntc l a i m s a ga i ns tC a t e , S ha w , W oodf or d, D o v e y , K e rn a n , H o s h in o , C la rk , A llis o n , a n dH u tc h in s . II. S ECTIO N 1983 D UE P RO CE SS C L A I MS T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d C ouc h’ s a nd J i m e ne z ’ s § 1983 due proces s c l ai m s, because they c ou l d n otpl ausi bl y a l l ege thatthey had a prot ec t ed l i berty or property i nt er es t . W e have re cogn i ze d thata l i berty i nt er es ti s i m pl i ca t ed if a c h ar g e lev eled b y th e g o v ern m en t ag ain st an in d iv idu al im p airs th at p er so n ’s r e put a t i on f

orhone s tyorm or a l i ty . V a ne l l i v. R e y nol ds S c h. D i s t . N o. 7, 667 F . 2d 7 7 3 , 7 7 7 - 7 8 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) . T o e s tab lis h ap r o te c te dlib e rtyin te r e s t u n d e rV a n e lli, C o u c h a n d J im e n e z m u s t e s tab lis h , in te ra lia , thatsom e pub l i c di sc l osure has been or w i l l be m ade of thei r a l l egedl y s t i gm at i zi ng transfe rs ou tof the IS U . Id. ; se e a l s o G uz m a n v. S he w ry , 552 F . 3d 941, 955 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . S e l f - r e port i ng by C ouc h a nd J i m e ne z bya ns w e r i ng que s t i ons on C a l i f orni a ’ s s t a nda r d appl i c a t i on f o rm , f o re x a m p le , d o e s n o t c o n s titu te p u b lic d is c lo s u r e f o rp u rp o s e s o f

V a n e lli. G uz m a n, 552 F . 3d a t957. O the rtha n s uc h s e l f - r e port i ng, C ouc h a nd J i m e ne z ha ve pl e a de d no f

a c t s s ugge s t i ng tha tthe a l l e ge dl ys t i gm a t i z i ng i nf orm a t i on ha s be e n or w i l l be publ i s he d. I nde e d, unde rC a l i f orni al a w , a nydoc um e nt s m e m or i a l i z i ng the transfe rs or al l eged dem ot i on s w ou l d b e e xem ptfr om a pub l i c r ec ords di sc l osure re qu es t . S ee C AL . G OV ’ T C ODE§ 6 2 5 4 ( c ) & ( k ) ; C AL . P EN AL C OD E §§ 83 2. 7(a) &9

832. 8( d) & ( e ) ; s e e a l s o C om m ’ n on P e a c e O f f i c e rS t a nda r ds & T r a i ni ng v. Su p e r i o rCo u rt , 1 6 5 P. 3 d 4 6 2 , 4 6 7 - 6 8 ( Ca l . 2 0 0 7 ) . N o rd o th e tr a n s f e r s o u to f

I SU gi ve r i s e t o apr ope rty - ba s e d due pr oc e s s c l a i m . C ouc h a nd J i m e ne z ha ve not s h o w n th a t th e yw e r e e n title d to as p e c if ic p o s itio n o rth a t th e yw e r e e n title dto re m ai n i n IS U , and thei r transfe rs w er e notac com pani ed by any decr ea se i n sal ary o rb e n e f its . S e e S tie s b e r g . v . C a lif o rn ia , 8 0 F .3 d3 5 3 , 3 5 7 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) . W e a f f i rm th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s d i s mi s s a l o f Co u c h ’ s a n dJ i me n e z ’ s d u e p r o c e s s c l a i ms a g a in s t a ll d e f

e n d a n ts a n d th u s h a v e n o o c c a s io n to a n a ly z e w h e th e rth e d e f e n d a n ts a ls o h a v e q u a lif

ie d im m u n itya s to th e d u e p r o c e s s c la im s . I I I . RI CO C L A I MS A l l thr e e of

f i c e r s s ue a l l tw e l ve de f

e nda nt s i n the i rpe r s ona l c apa c i t i e s f or in ju r ie s to b u s in e s s a n d p r o p e rtyu n d e rR I C O § 1 9 6 4 ( c ) , w h ic h p r o v id e s ap r iv a te c i vi l c aus e of

a c t i on f or“ [ a ] nype r s on i nj ur e d i n hi s bus i ne s s orpr ope rtybyr e a s on of avi ol a t i on of

s e c t i on 1962. ” 18 U . S . C . § 1964( c ) . S e c t i on 1962, i n turn, cont ai ns the cr i m i nal prov i si on s of the st atut e, and C ou ch, Ji m enez , and T orre s alleg e v io lati o n s u n d er§ § 1 9 6 2 (b ), (c ), an d(d ). W e a ff irm th e d istrict co u rt’s di sm i ss al of T orre s’ s R IC O cl ai m agai nstal l defe nd ant s, and aff i rm the di stri ct c o u rt’s d is m is s a l o f

C o u c h ’s a n d J im e n e z ’s R I C O c la im s a g a in s t a ll d e f e n d a n ts e x c e p t W a n , B o n c o r e , a n dD ia z .10

A s a n in it ial m atter, w e a ff irm th e d istrict co u rt’s d ism issa l o f th e o ff icer s’ § 1 96 2(b) cl ai m s a gai nstal l defe nd ant s, because the offi ce rs do no tal l ege or even m ak e a n y m en ti o n o f f

ac ts o r a rg u m en ts th at su g g es t th at d ef en d an ts en g ag ed in “a pa tt e rn of

r a c ke t e e r i ng a c t i vi ty ” i n or de rt o “ a c qui r e orm a i nt a i n, di r e c t l yor i nd i re ct l y, any i nt er es ti n o r c on trol of” the ent erpri se . 18 U . S . C . § 1 96 2(b). U nde rR I C O , a“ pl a i nt i f f onl yha s s t a ndi ng i f

, a nd c a n onl yr e c ove rt o the ext entthat , he has been i nj ured i n h i s busi ness or prop erty by the cond uct c ons t i tut i ng the vi ol a t i on. ” S e di m a , S . P . R . L . v. I m r e x C o. , 473 U . S . 479, 496 ( 1985) . I n or de rt o s urvi ve the m ot i on t o di s m i s s , e a c h of the of f i c e r s m us ts how tha tthe de f

e nda nt s ’ c onduc tw a s the pr oxi m a t e c aus e of tha ti nj ury . H ol m e s v. S e c . I n v e s to rP r o t. C o rp ., 5 0 3 U .S . 2 5 8 , 2 6 8 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u rt r e c e n tly cl ar i fi ed thatthi s proxi m at e c ause re qu i re s “ ‘ som e di r e c t r e lat i on be tw e e n the i nj ury a ss ert ed and the i nj uri ou s c on du ctal l eged’ ” and expl i ci t l y r ej ec t ed f o r s e e ab i l i tya s as t a n d a r d f o rd e t e rmi n i n g p r o x i ma t e c au s a t i o n . He mi Gr o u p , LL C v. C i tyof

N e w Y ork, — U . S . — , 130 S . C t . 983, 989, 991 ( 2010) ( quot i ng H ol m es , 50 3 U . S . at26 8) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). T he deci si on i n H em i G roup w as a n n o u n c e d a f

te rb r ie f in g in th is c a s e a n dle s s th a n aw e e kb e f o r e o r a l a r g u m e n t. T he offi ce rs ar gu ed i n thei r c om pl ai ntand b ri ef s thatthei r i nj uri es w er e a fore se eabl e r es ul tof the defendant s’ predi ca t e a ct s, thu s e st abl i shi ng st andi ng . In11

d o i n g so , th ey rel i ed o n D i az v . G at es, w h i ch st at es th atth e “ p ro x i m at e cau se s ta n d a r d . . . is g e n e r o u s e n o u g h to in c lu d e th e u n in te n d e d , th o u g h f o r e s e e ab le c o n s e q u e n c e s o f

R I C O p r e d ic a te a c ts .” 4 2 0 F .3 d8 9 7 , 9 0 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . H ow ever , H em i G roup defi ni t i vel y f orec l osed R IC O l i abi l i ty f or consequences that ar e onl y f

ores ee abl e w i tho utsom e di re ctre l at i on shi p. H em i G roup , 13 0 S . C t . at 99 1. E ac h o ff

i ce r m ustal l ege thatthe R IC O predi ca t e a ct s of obstruct i on of j ust i ce i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 15 12 (b)( 3), (c )( 1), and (d)(1)-( 4) ar e the prox i m at e, an d n o tj u stfo reseeab l e, cau ses o f th e o ffi cers’ i n j u ri es. T he r e a r e no f

a c t s tha tT orr e s c oul d a l l e ge t o s t a t e ac l a i m tha tthe defe nd ant s’ com m i ss i on of R IC O predi ca t e a ct s had a d ir e c t r e la tio n s h ip to h is a l l e ge d i nj ur i e s , i nc l udi ng s tr e s s , ne e d f orps y c hi a tr i c c a r e , a nd r e s ul t i ng i nt e r f e r e nc e w i th hi s abi l i tyt o pur s ue c ontr a c tua l r e l a t i ons . T he l i nk be tw e e n the de f e nda nt s ’ a l l e ge d pr e di c a t e a c t s a nd T orr e s ’ s r e s ul t i ng i nj ur i e s i s f a rt oo att enuat ed t o con fe r s t andi ng , and w e there fore af fi rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al of T orr e s ’ s R I C O c l a i m a ga i ns ta l l de f e nda nt s . H e m i G r oup, 130 S . C t . 983, 989 ( “ B e c aus e [ the pl a i nt i f

f’ s ] the oryof

c aus a t i on r e qui r e s us t o m ove w e l l be y ond the fi rs tst ep, thattheory c anno tm ee tR IC O ’ s di re ctre l at i on shi p requi re m ent . ”) . In a d d itio n , T o rr e s ’s in

ju r ie s a r e m o r e a k in to p e r s o n a l in ju r ie s th a t a r e n o t c o g n iz ab le u n d e rR I C O . D ia z , 4 2 0 F .3 d a t 9 0 0 .I ti s pos s i bl e tha tC ouc h a nd J i m e ne z m a ynotbe abl e t o e s t abl i s h the 5 r e q u i s i t e i n

j u ryu n d e ro u re n b a n c d e c i s i o n i n Di a z , 4 2 0 F . 3 da t9 0 0 . Al th o u g h we r e c o g n i z e d i n D i a z th a to u rd e c i s i o n a rt i c u l a t e s amo r e e x p a n s i v e th e o ryo f RI CO l i abi l i tyf ore m pl oy m e nt - r e l a t e d l os s e s , w e e xpr e s s l ynot e d tha tourhol di ng di d not c r e a t e unl i m i t e d s t a ndi ng f orl os s of w a ge s . I d. a t901. B e c aus e w e r e ve r s e a nd re m and w i th res pectt o p roxi m at e c ause un der H em i G roup , w e l eave for ano ther day w hether C ou ch and Ji m enez al l ege s uffi ci enti nj ury und erD i az . 12 O u rd e n o v o a n a ly s is in d ic a te s th a t C o u c h a n dJ im e n e z m ig h t b e ab le to a l l e ge f a c t s e s t abl i s hi ng adi r e c tr e l a t i on be tw e e n the i ri nj ur i e s a nd s om e of the de f e nda nt s ’ pr e di c a t e a c t s . F ore xa m pl e , the tr a ns f e rof C ouc h t o adi f

f e r e nt 5 f a c ilitya n d th e a lle g a tio n th a t W a n , B o n c o r e , a n dD ia z e f f e c te dth is tr a n s f

e rto p r e v e n t h im f

r o m p u r s u in g h ig h p r o f ile p e a c e k e e p e r s s u g g e s ts ad ir e c t r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n C o u c h ’s in

ju rya n d r a c k e te e r in g a c tiv ityin v io la tio n o f § 1 5 1 2 ( b ) ( 3 ) . L ik e w is e , J im e n e z ’s tr a n s f e rto ad if

f e r e n t f a c ilitya n dth e a lle g a tio n th a t th is tr a ns f e rw a s i n r e t a l i a t i on f

orhi s c onc e rns abouta n i nve s t i ga t i on of the m ur de rof a n i nm a t e a l s o s ugge s t s adi r e c tr e l a t i ons hi p be tw e e n hi s i nj urya nd r a c ke t e e r i ng a c tiv ityin v io la tio n o f

§ 1 5 1 2 ( b ) ( 3 ) . B e c au s e d is m is s a l w ith o u t le a v e to a m e n d is i m pr ope runl e s s “ the c om pl a i ntc oul d notbe s a ve d bya nya m e ndm e nt , ” P ol i c h, 9 4 2 F. 2 d a t1 4 7 2 , a n d b e c au s e a me n d me n to f Co u c h ’ s a n dJ i me n e z ’ s RI CO c l a i ms m i ghtnotbe f

ut i l e w i th r e s pe c tt o W a n, B onc or e , a nd D i a z , w e r e ve r s e a nd r e m a nd C o u c h ’s a n d J im e n e z ’s R I C O c la im s w ith in s tru c tio n s to a llo w le a v e to a m e n dto13

a l l e ge fa ct s e st abl i shi ng prox i m at e c ause H em i G roup , bu ton l y a s t o these three d efen d an t s. D i s m i s s a l w a s pr ope ra ga i ns tC a t e , S ha w , W oodf or d, D ove y , K e rna n, H o s h in o , A llis o n , C la rk , a n d H u tc h in s b e c au s e th e o f f ic e r s a lle g e in s u f

f ic ie n t f a c ts th a t th e s e d e f

e n d a n ts th e m s e lv e s c o m m itte dp r e d ic a te o f f e n s e s u n d e r§ 1 9 6 2 ( c ) . T h e o f f ic e r s a ls o a lle g e th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts “k n o w in g lya n dw illf u llyc o n s p ir e d. . . t o eng age i n the vi ol at i on ” of § 19 62 (c ) and thatea ch “ ai ded and abett ed, and w as th e c o - c o n s p ir a to ro f

, e a c h o f th e o th e r s a n dw a s a t a ll tim e s a c tin g , a n dd ida c t, in furtherance of, and w i th ful l kn ow l edge of, the un l aw ful pu rposes of such conspi ra cy . ” H ow ever , “ [t ] o est abl i sh a vi ol at i on of se ct i on 19 62 (d), P l ai nt i ff s m us ta l l e ge e i the ra n a gr e e m e nttha ti s as ubs t a nt i ve vi ol a t i on of R I C O ortha tthe d e f e n d a n ts a g r e e d to c o m m it, o rp a rtic ip a te din , av io la tio n o f tw o p r e d ic a te of f e ns e s . ” H ow a r d v. A m . O nl i ne I nc . , 208 F . 3d 741, 751 ( 9th C i r . 2000) . T he offi ce rs ’ R IC O conspi ra cycl ai m s f ai l as t o m ostof the defendant s, because they a lle g e in s u f

f ic ie n t f a c ts to d e m o n s tr a te a n a g r e e m e n t to v io la te R I C O o rap r e d ic a te s ta tu te b ya n yo f

th e d e f e n d a n ts e x c e p t W a n , B o n c o r e , a n dD ia z . I V. C ONCLUSI ON I n s um m a ry , w e a f

f i rm the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s m i s s a l of C ouc h’ s a nd Ji m en ez’ s § 1 9 8 3 F i rstA m en d m en tcl ai m s ag ai n stC at e, S h aw , W o o d fo rd , D o v ey,14

K e rna n, H os hi no, C l a rk, A l l i s on, a nd H ut c hi ns . W e r e ve r s e the di s m i s s a l of C ou ch’ s and Ji m enez ’ s § 19 83 F i rs tA m endm entcl ai m s a gai nstB on core and D i az an d re m an d fo r lea v e to am en d in li g h t o f C eb allo s. W e a ff irm th e d istrict co u rt’s d is m is s a l o f

C o u c h ’s a n d J im e n e z ’s § 1 9 8 3 d u e p r o c e s s c la im s a g a in s t a ll d e f e n d a n t s . Fi n a l l y , w e a f

f i rm th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s d i s mi s s a l o f To rr e s ’ s RI CO claim ag ain st all d ef

en d an ts. W e a ff

irm th e d istrict co u rt’s d ism issa l o f C o u ch ’s a nd J i m e ne z ’ s R I C O c l a i m s a ga i ns tC a t e , S ha w , W oodf or d, D ove y , K e rna n, H os hi no, C l a rk, A l l i s on, a nd H ut c hi ns . W e r e ve r s e the di s m i s s a l of C ouc h’ s a nd J im e n e z ’s R I C O c la im s a g a in s t W a n , B o n c o r e , a n dD ia z a n dr e m a n df o rle a v e to a m e nd i n l i ghtof

H e m i G r oup. AF F I RM E D I N P ART , RE V E RS E D I N P ART AND RE M ANDE D F OR F URT HE R P ROCE E DI NGS . A ll p a rtie s s h a ll b e a rth e iro w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l.