FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T FEB 16, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 05 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 9 :1 1- cv -8 08 86 -KAM

RICHAR D GORDON FRANK,
l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us
LAKE W ORTH UTILITIES, CITY OF LAKE W ORTH, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Defen da nt s- App el le es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 16 , 20 12 )
Befo re MAR CUS, PRYOR a nd KRAVITCH, Cir cu it Ju dg es
. PER CURI AM:R i c h a r d Fran k ap pe al s pr o se fro m th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of hi s ci vi l

rig ht s act io n ag ai ns t Lak e W or th Uti li ti es , a ci ty-run ut il it y co m pa ny, an d th e Ci ty of
Lak e W or th (co ll ect iv el y “ Lak e W or th ”) br ou gh t pu rs ua nt to 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 , an d
18 U.S.C. § 19 64 (“ RICO” ) (al le gi ng a vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 19 51 (“ Hob bs Act” )).

Fran k’s co m

pl ai nt aro se ou t of act io ns th at oc cu rred fo ll owi ng a se pa rat e ba nk ru pt cy
pr oc eed in g. In th is co m

pl ai nt , Fran k al le ge d th at Lak e W or th vi ol at ed hi s ci vi l rig ht s
b y at te m pt in g to co ll ect m on ey no lo ng er owe d to it fo ll owi ng hi s f i l i n g f o r
ba nk ru pt cy an d by req ui rin g a de po si t in ad va nc e of fu tu re se rv ic e. On ap pe al , Fran k

arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in di sm is si ng hi s cl ai m un de r RICO an d th e Hob bs Act, and in di sm is si ng hi s clai m un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. Afte r care fu l revi ew, we 1
affi rm
. 2

W e rev ie w di sm is s a l s fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m de no vo , tre at in g ev ery
al le ga t i o n in th e co m

pl ai nt as tru e. Hug he s v. Lot t, 35 0 F.3 d 11 57 , 11 59 -6 0 (1 1t h
Ci r. 20 03 ).

I n addition, Fra

nk raises se vera l issues on appea l which wer e not bef ore the district 1 court in the pre sent ca se. He alleg es er ror on the pa

rt of the ba

nkruptcy court in dismissing a separ ate c ase f

iled ag ainst L ake Worth, as we ll as err or on the pa rt of the district cour

t in deny ing to hear the issues raise d in that case . The pre sent district court docke t contains only appellant’ s civil rig hts complaint, along with the district court orde r dismissing that complaint. To the e x tent the par ties arg ue other

order s, we de cline to re ach the merits of those ar g uments. Acc ess Now, I nc. v. Southwest Airlines, Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (holding tha t appellate courts g ener ally

will not consider issues not prese nted to the trial cour t). We also GRANT the City of L ake Worth’s motion to file its answer br ief out of time. 2
2A c ou rt “ sh al l di sm is s” a cas e fi le d i n fo rm a p au pe ris if th e co ur t de te rm in es

th at th e co m

pl ai nt “ fai ls to st at e a cl ai m up o n w h ic h rel ie f m ay be gr an te d.” 28
U.S.C. § 19 15 (e)( 2) (B)( ii ). The st an da rd s th at ap pl y to a m ot io n to di sm is s un de r
F e d

. R

. C i v.P

. 12 (b )(6 ) ap pl y to a di sm is sa l un de r § 19 15 (e)( 2) (B)( ii ). Mi tc he ll v.
Farc as s, 11 2 F.3 d 14 83 , 1 49 0 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 99 7)

. “ To su rv iv e a m ot io n to di sm is s, a

co m pl ai nt m us t co nt ai n su ffi ci en t fact ua l m at te r, acce pt ed as tru e, to ‘stat e a cl ai m of
rel ie f th at is pl au si bl e on it s face.’” Ash cro ft v

. Iq ba l, 55 6 U.S. 66 2, __ _, 12 9 S.Ct.
19 3 7 , 19 49 (2 00 9) (ci ti ng Bel l Atl an ti c Co rp
. v. Twom bl y , 55 0 U.S. 54 4, 57 0 (2 00 7) ). Acco rd in g l y, i n d e ci di ng th is ap pe al , we m us t li m it ou r an al y si s to th e
al le ga ti on s co nt ai ne d i n F ran k’s co m pl ai nt

. Fi rs t, we fin d no m eri t to Fran k’s arg um en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in
di sm is si ng hi s RICO an d Hob bs Act cl ai m
. In or de r to m ak e ou t a ci vi l RICO cl ai m

un de r th e Hob bs Act, th e p la in ti ff m us t al le ge th at a de fen da nt ob st ru ct ed , del ay ed ,

or affe ct ed co m

m erce (or att em

pt ed to do so ), by rob be ry or e xt or ti on
. 18 U.S.C. §
1 9 5 1

. Ext or ti on can oc cu r th ro ug h fo rce, th reat , vi ol en ce, fear , or un de r co lo r of
of fic ia l ri gh t. 1 8 U.S.C. § 19 51 (b )(2 ).

Ext or ti on , a s us ed in th e Hob bs Act, ret ai ns it s co m m on la w m ean in g as i t is

ap pl ie d to go ve rn m en t of fic ia ls

. W il ki e v. Ro bb in s, 55 1 U.S. 53 7, 56 3- 64 (2 00 7) ;
Sch ei dl er v. Nati on al Org an iz at io n fo r W om en , In c., 53 7 U.S. 39 3, 40 2 (2 00 3) ; Eva ns

3v. Uni te d St at es , 50 4 U.S. 25 5, 26 0 (1 99 2)

. The co m m on la w de fin it io n of ex to rti on
do es no t in cl ud e th e ta ki ng of pr op ert y fo r th e be ne fit of th e go ve rn m en t. W il ki e, 55 1
U

. S

. a t 56 4- 65

. Ext or ti on was an of fen se co m

m it te d by a pu bl ic of

fic ia l who t o o k

pr op ert y u n d e r th e pr et en se it was du e to hi m by v irt ue of hi s of fic e, ak in to ta ki ng

a br ib e. Id

. It di d no t, at co m m on la w, in cl ud e “ th e ha r m cau se d by ov erze al ou s
effo rts to ob ta in pro pe rty on be ha lf o f th e Gov ern m en t.” I d.

In th is cas e, Fran k’s co m

pl ai nt fai le d to m ak e ou t a cl ai m un de r th e Hob bs Act.

Fran k m ad e se ve ral al le ga ti on s th at Lak e W or th il le ga ll y de m an de d m on ey , an d th at
Lak e W or th m ad e se ve ral th reat s in co nn ect io n wit h t h o se de m an ds

. Howev er,

no whe re in th e co m

pl ai nt di d Fran k al le ge th at th e m on ey was be in g co ll ect ed fo r an y

reas on ot he r th an fo r th e be ne fit of th e go ve rn m en t. As a res ul t, Fran k’s co m pl ai nt ,

as a m at te r of la w, fai ls to ad eq ua te ly al le ge ex to rti on
. F u r t h e r , F r a n k do es no t

at te m pt to al le ge ro bb ery. The refo re, hi s co m pl ai nt fai ls to a d e q u a t e ly al le ge a
vi ol at io n of th e Hob bs Act, an d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in di sm is si ng hi s RICO
cl ai m
. Nor do we ag ree th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in di sm is si ng hi s § 19 83 cl ai m
. In or de r to m ak e ou t a cl ai m un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 , th e pl ai nt iff m us t all eg e th at a

st at e a c to r de pr iv ed hi m of a fed eral rig ht

. Grif fin v. Ci ty of Opa -Loc ka , 26 1 F.3 d

412 95 , 13 03 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ). A fed eral rig ht m ay de riv e fro m th e Co ns ti tu ti on or

fed eral st at ut e. Mai ne v. Th ib ou to t, 4 48 U.S. 1, 4 (19 80 ).
A pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n oc cu rs whe n a st at e act or de pr iv es a pa rty
of a co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed li be rty or pr op ert y in te res t th ro ug h a co ns ti tu ti on al ly
in ad eq ua te pr oc es s. Cat ro n v. Ci ty of St

. Pet ers bu rg , 65 8 F.3 d 12 60 , 12 66 (1 1t h Ci r.
20 11 ). A pr oc es s is co ns ti t ut io na ll y in ad eq ua te whe n a rem ed y fo r an un la wfu l
de p r i v a t io n is no t av ai la bl e. See Lin ds ey v. St or ey , 93 6 F.2 d 55 4, 56 1 (1 1t h Ci r.
19 91 ).
A su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n oc cu rs whe n a st at e act or de pr iv es a pa rty
of cert ai n fu nd a men t a l rig ht s, reg ard le ss of th e pr oc es s us ed to effe ct ua te th at
de pr iv at io n. W il li ams v. Att ’y Gen

. of Alab am a, 37 8 F.3 d 12 32 , 12 35 (1 1t h Ci r.
20 04 ). The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s ru le d th at m an y of th e rig ht s ari si ng ou t of ba nk ru pt cy
la w are no t co ns ti tu ti on al ly de ri v e d o r fu nd am en ta l un de r th e co ns ti tu ti on
. Uni te d
St at es v. Kras , 40 9 U.S. 4 34 , 44 6 (1 97 3)

. Here, Fran k fai le d to ad eq ua te ly al le ge an y pe rm is si bl e g r o un d fo r a Sect io n
19 83 cl ai m in hi s co m

pl ai nt

. W it h reg ard to pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s, Fran k di d no t
al le ge th at a co ns ti tu ti on al ly in ad eq ua te pr oc es s ex is te d. Fran k ad m it te d in hi s

co m pl ai nt th at fo ll owi ng a m eet in g wit h th e ut il it y co m pa ny, hi s bi ll was am en de d to

5r e fle ct hi s ba nk ru pt cy fil in g. Thu s, th e de pr iv at io n al le ge d by Fran k was in fa c t

rem ed ie d, an d a pro ced ur al du e p ro ces s cl ai m was n ot ad eq ua te ly alle ge d.
As fo r su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s, Fr a n k fai le d to al le ge th at a vi ol at io n of a
fu nd am en ta l rig ht oc cu rred

. Fran k’s co m pl ai nt al le ge d a vi ol at io n of hi s rig ht to be
free fro m un la wfu l de bt co ll ect io n fo ll owi ng a ba nk ru pt cy fil in g. Fran k ha s no t ci te d,

n o r can we fin d, an y th in g to su gg es t th at th is is a fu nd am en ta l rig ht un d e r t h e
Co ns ti tu ti on , and Fran k th eref or e h as fai le d t o a ll eg e a v io la ti on of s ub st an ti ve du e
pr oc es s.
Fran k si m il arl y fai le d to al le ge a st at ut or y vi ol at io n oc cu rred whi ch wou ld gi ve
ris e to a § 19 83 cl ai m
. On ap pe al , Fran k li nk s a vi ol at io n of th e au to m at ic st ay
pr ov is io n of 11 U.S.C. § 36 2 wit h hi s § 198 3 clai m
. Howev er, Frank di d no t all eg e
in th e di st ric t co ur t th a t t h e ba si s fo r hi s § 19 83 cl ai m de riv ed di rect ly fro m su ch a

v i ol at io n. Rat he r, he gr ou nd ed hi s § 19 83 cl ai m in th e 14 th Am en dm en t. Wh i l e

“ ba nk ru pt cy la ws an d rig ht s” are ge ne ral ly di sc us se d in th e co m pl ai nt , th ey are

m en ti on ed in co nju nc ti on wit h “ an ex to rti on at e at te m pt ” -- whi ch in di cat es th ey were
be in g rai se d in co nn ect io n wit h ap pe ll an t’s Hob bs Act cl ai m
. Fran k m ay no t rai se a

n e w l e g a l th eo ry fo r hi s cl ai m on ap pe al

. Acces s Now, In c., 38 5 F.3 d at 13 31

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm
. AFFIRMED.

6