Adams v. Teamsters Local 115 ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-22-2007
Adams v. Teamsters Local 115
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-3680
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Adams v. Teamsters Local 115" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1761.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1761
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 03-3680
_________________
DON ADAMS; THERESA ADAMS,
Appellants
v.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 115; KEVIN MCNULTY; MARC A. NARDONE; MARK
HOPKINS; CHARLIE DAVIS; HEATHER L. DIOCSON; NORMA BOTTOMER;
SHARON HOPKINS; NORTON BRAINARD, III; EDWARD G. RENDELL; LYNNE
M. ABRAHAM; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE NOS. 1-99, Certain Unknown Officials,
Employees, and/or Members of the City of Philadelphia Mayor’s Office, The District
Attorney’s Office and/or Teamsters Local 115, and other entities; THE ESTATE OF
JOHN P. MORRIS; JOHN F. TIMONEY; JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.; PHILADELPHIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; KENNETH J. WOODRING, JR.;
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 99-cv-04910)
District Judge: The Honorable William H. Yohn, Jr.
Argued October 18, 2006
________________
Before: BRIGHT,* Circuit Judge, and OBERDORFER,** District Judge, and
RESTANI***, International Trade Judge
(Filed: January 22, 2007)
Joseph M. Adams, Esq.
Suite 209
200 Highpoint Drive
Chalfont, PA 18914
Earl N. Mayfield III, Esq.
Gura & Day
11350 Random Hills Road
Suite 650
Fairfax, VA 22030
Attorneys for Appellants
Thomas H. Kohn, Esq.
Markowitz & Richman
121 South Broad Street
Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Attorney for Appellee Teamsters Local 115
Jane L. Istvan, Esq.
City of Philadelphia
Law Department
1515 Arch Street, 17th Floor
One Parkway
Philadelphia, PA 19102
*
Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior Judge of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
**
Honorable Louis F. Oberdorfer, Senior Judge of the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.
***
Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge of the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
2
Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
Trujillo, Rodriguez & Richards
1717 Arch Street
Suite 3838
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Attorneys for Appellee Edward G. Rendell
Karen A. Brancheau, Esq.
Jennifer M. Albright, Esq.
Office of District Attorney
Three South Penn Square
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3499
Attorneys for Appellee Lynne Abraham
Robert M. Baptiste, Esq.
Baptiste & Wilder
1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
Attorney for Appellee International Brotherhood of Teamsters
OPINION OF THE COURT
RESTANI, Judge.
Don and Teresa Adams (collectively “Appellants” or the “Adams”) appeal the District
Court’s dismissal of their Pennsylvania state law civil conspiracy claim against Philadelphia
District Attorney Lynne Abraham (“Abraham”), and the District Court’s grant of summary
judgment against them on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. The Adams claimed that
Philadelphia District Attorney Abraham conspired with former Philadelphia Mayor Edward
3
G. Rendell (“Rendell”) and Teamsters Union Local 115 (“Teamsters Local 115”) to engage
in unlawful acts. The Adams also brought a § 1983 claim against Rendell, Teamsters Local
115, then Secretary-Treasurer of the Teamsters Local 115 John Morris (“Morris”), Morris’
former Chief-of-Staff, Kenneth J. Woodring Jr. (“Woodring”), the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, and certain members of Teamsters Local 115 (collectively “Appellees”),
alleging that Rendell conspired with the Teamsters to use violence to prevent the Adams
from exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. The District Court dismissed the
civil conspiracy claim against Abraham for failure to state a claim, and granted summary
judgment against the Adams on the § 1983 claim, finding that there was insufficient evidence
that Rendell made an agreement with the Teamsters to assault the Adams. We will affirm.
I. Procedural and Factual Background
The underlying suit arises from events surrounding a political fund-raiser hosted by
Rendell and attended by President William Jefferson Clinton in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
on October 2, 1998. The fund-raiser was held around the time that President Clinton faced
the possibility of impeachment. To ensure that the President’s reception was positive,
Rendell reached out to various community groups and organizations to rally and support
President Clinton. Rendell personally placed approximately twenty phone calls to various
groups and also had his representatives place another fifty to sixty phone calls.
One of the personal calls made by Rendell was to the then Secretary-Treasurer of
Teamsters Local 115, Morris.1 Rendell describes the call as follows:
1
Morris passed away in April of 2002. He was never deposed.
4
[I told him that] ‘[t]he President is coming to town. We want a real good
reception for the President. There may be some demonstrators there. And we
certainly want to in number and in – in loudness. We want to drown out the
demonstrators.’ I told him who I was calling, community groups, clergy,
African-American clergy, Democratic groups, other labor members. And I
said ‘Can you bring some people to the – to the demonstration?’ I told him the
route that the President’s car was going to take. I said, ‘Can you, somewhere
along that route, bring some people and – and cheer when the President came
by?’ I specifically said I didn’t want any interaction with the demonstrators.
I said I want this to be extremely peaceful and extremely positive. I said – I
think I recall saying, ‘I want this story out of this. Clinton comes to
Philadelphia welcomed by, you know, tens of thousands.’ And that’s the story
that I wanted. And I said, so, you know, ‘If anybody heckles or taunts, let
them do it.’
(Rendell Dep. 114:4–115:6, Jan. 2, 2002.)
In response, Morris instructed Woodring to send a mass e-mail to Teamsters in the
Delaware and Pennsylvania area, requesting that they line the route to the fund-raiser to
support President Clinton.2 (Woodring Decl. ¶ 8, Aug. 13, 2002.) As a result, a large
number of Teamsters rallied outside the fund-raiser, holding signs and wearing t-shirts with
the slogan “Teamsters for Clinton.”
Also at the rally were groups of individuals protesting President Clinton’s visit (“anti-
Clinton demonstrators” or “demonstrators”). Some of these demonstrators displayed signs
with slogans such as “[r]esign or get impeached,” and “liar, pervert, national shame,” (J.A.
358, 373), and chanted “[i]mpeach Clinton now,” (J.A. 363). Appellants, siblings Don and
Theresa Adams, were among the demonstrators that day.
2
Paul Rivera of the White House Scheduling Office also contacted Woodring on
September 30, 1998, stating that a strong Teamster showing at the Clinton fundraiser
would be desirable.
5
The two groups clashed throughout the day, and on one occasion, the encounter
became physical. Don Adams recalls that a hat was placed on his head and pulled over his
eyes by Morris. Don Adams was then rushed by several members of Teamsters Local 115.
Don Adams testifies that they then knocked him down and repeatedly punched and kicked
him. To protect her brother, Theresa Adams placed herself between her brother and the
Teamsters, thereby sustaining injuries herself. The police separated the parties within thirty
seconds to two minutes. Because of the media presence at the rally, the fight was reported
widely on local newscasts.
Two days after the incident, Morris spoke to Rendell and expressed his frustration
about the negative media coverage that the Teamsters were receiving. Although it is
undisputed that there was a conversation between Morris and Rendell that day, there is some
dispute as to the content of the conversation. Rendell testified that he told Morris that “[you]
ruined what should have been a good show of support for President Clinton, and introduced
a total collateral issue to it that detracted from the overwhelmingly warm support the
President had in Philadelphia.” (Rendell Dep. 11:4–9, June 14, 2002.) Woodring,3 however,
claims that Rendell assured Morris that “nothing is going to happen to these guys,” and that
there would be no negative consequences for the Teamsters because he “[knew] how these
things go.”4 (Woodring Decl. ¶ 14.) Woodring also claims that Rendell proposed that “the
3
At Morris’ request, Woodring would often listen in and take notes on Morris’
telephone conversations.
4
Woodring gave different accounts relating to this matter. During his deposition
on September 28, 2001, he testified that he did not recall a conversation between Rendell
6
Teamsters should file private criminal complaints against Don Adams.”5 (Id.)
Afterwards, one member of Teamsters Local 115 filed a private criminal complaint
against Don Adams, claiming that he had punched her in the face at the rally. Id. Don
Adams was tried and found not guilty. The Adams also filed private criminal complaints
against several members of Teamsters Local 115. Following an investigation, four members
of the Teamsters were criminally charged.6 Each individual was charged with two counts of
aggravated and simple assault, riot, recklessly endangering another, and criminal conspiracy.
All four pled guilty to two counts of simple assault and one count of criminal conspiracy.
Additionally, two pled guilty to two counts of riot each, and one pled guilty to one count of
riot. Adams v. Teamsters Local 115, No. 99-4910, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15477, *14 (E.D.
Pa. Aug. 6, 2003).
On October 4, 1999, the Adams filed the instant suit alleging federal civil rights and
Pennsylvania tort claims against Appellees in the United States District Court for the Eastern
and Morris. (Woodring Dep. 275:9–14, Sept. 28, 2001.) Then, in an affidavit dated
August 13, 2002, after the close of discovery and after Morris’ death, he described the
conversation as stated above.
5
On the same day of Morris’ conversation with Rendell, Rendell’s Deputy Mayor
for Communications, Kevin Feeley (“Feeley”), spoke to a reporter, saying that although
the incident was “unfortunate,” and the administration “does not condone” the actions of
the Teamsters, “the anti-Clinton groups chose to make their views known. They chose to
make their views known in the face of the Teamsters. That . . . is generally not a good
career move.” (Feeley Dep. 76:16–77:5, Mar. 27, 2002.) Feeley testified that Rendell
was unhappy with Feeley’s statement. (Id. at 99:21–22.) Feeley also later stated that he
meant the comment as a joke. (Id. at 99:13–15.)
6
Morris was not criminally charged.
7
District of Pennsylvania. As stated previously, the Adams included a § 1983 claim alleging
that Rendell conspired with the Teamsters to violate their right to free speech, and a civil
conspiracy action alleging that District Attorney Abraham conspired with the other Appellees
to “engage in unlawful acts.” The District Court dismissed the majority of the Adams’
federal and state law claims, including the civil conspiracy claim against Abraham. The
District Court did not dismiss the § 1983 claim, but instead gave the Adams leave to file a
second amended complaint.
The Adams filed a second amended complaint to clarify specific claims against
Rendell and to remove the counts and allegations that had been dismissed. The District
Court then granted Appellees’ motion for summary judgment against the Adams as to the
§ 1983 claim, finding that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Rendell had
participated in a conspiracy. The District Court dismissed the remaining state law claims
without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
The Adams appeal the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the
Appellees on the § 1983 claim and the dismissal of the civil conspiracy claim against
Abraham.7
7
Additionally, the Adams brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986,
which the District Court dismissed. Appellants have also challenged these dismissals.
Section 1985(3) prohibits a conspiracy that interferes with civil rights “for the
purpose of depriving . . . any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the
laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
Meanwhile, “[i]n order to maintain a cause of action under § 1986, the plaintiffs must
show the existence of a § 1985 conspiracy.” Clark v. Clabaugh, 20 F.3d 1290, 1295 n.5
(3d Cir. 1994). To succeed on a § 1985(3) claim, the Adams must prove that they are a
8
II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2000). We
have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Our review of a district court’s grant of summary judgment is plenary. Moore v. City
of Philadelphia, 461 F.3d 331, 340 (3d Cir. 2006). Summary judgment is appropriate when,
after considering the record as a whole, there is no genuine issue of material fact. Matsushita
Elec. Indus. Co., v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). In examining the record,
we will draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). The question is not whether there is literally
no evidence supporting the party against whom the motion is directed but whether there is
evidence upon which the jury could properly find a verdict for that party. Id. at 251 (quoting
Schuylkill & Dauphin Improvement & R.R. Co. v. Munson, 81 U.S. 442, 448 (1872).
We also exercise plenary review over the District Court’s grant of a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim. McDowell v. Del. State Police, 88 F.3d 188, 189 (3d Cir. 1996).
We accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences from
protected class within the meaning of § 1985(3). Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 5 (1st
Cir. 1996). Appellants had argued that they were members of a class based upon a shared
political affiliation.
Appellants now acknowledge that their § 1985 claim is foreclosed by Farber v.
City of Paterson, 440 F.3d 131, 143 (3d Cir. 2006), which held “that § 1985(3) does not
provide a cause of action for individuals allegedly injured by conspiracies motivated by
discriminatory animus directed toward their political affiliation.” Letter from Earl N.
“Trey” Mayfield, III, Esq., Counsel for Appellants, to the Office of the Clerk, United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Sept. 24, 2006).
9
them. Markowitz v. Ne. Land Co., 906 F.2d 100, 103 (3d Cir. 1990). We will affirm the
dismissal if it is certain that no relief can be granted under any set of facts that could be
proven. Id.III. Discussion
As previously stated, the Adams challenge the District Court’s grant of summary
judgment against them on the § 1983 claim, arguing that there is sufficient evidence of a
conspiracy between Rendell and the Teamsters to violate the free speech rights of anti-
Clinton demonstrators by assaulting them. The Adams also challenge the District Court’s
dismissal of the civil conspiracy claim against Abraham, arguing that they had made a
sufficient pleading to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. We disagree with the Adams on both
counts.
A. The Adams failed to present sufficient evidence of a conspiracy between Rendell
and members of Teamsters Local 115.
To establish a § 1983 claim,8 a plaintiff must show that the defendant “deprived him
of [a] constitutional right ‘under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage,
8
42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides that:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom,
or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States of other person within
the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act
or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not
be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable.
10
of any State or Territory.’” Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150 (1970). If there
is no action under the color of law, there is no liability under § 1983. Groman v. Twp. of
Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 638 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Versarge v. Twp. of Clinton, N.J., 984
F.2d 1359, 1363 (3d Cir. 1993)).
A defendant acts under color of state law “if . . . there is such a ‘close nexus between
the State and the challenged action’ that seemingly private behavior ‘may be fairly treated
as that of the State itself.’” Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531
U.S. 288, 295 (2001) (quoting Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 351 (1974)). A
plaintiff may show such a nexus by establishing that the state and a private actor conspired
with one another to violate an individual’s rights. Adickes, 398 U.S. at 152. In this event,
a plaintiff must allege and prove the elements of a civil conspiracy. See Melo v. Hafer, 912
F.2d 628, 638 n.11 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d 600, 620–21 (7th
Cir. 1979), rev’d in part on other grounds, 446 U.S. 754 (1980)).
A civil conspiracy is “‘a combination of two or more persons acting in concert to
commit an unlawful act, or to commit a lawful act by unlawful means, the principal element
of which is an agreement between the parties to inflict a wrong against or injury upon
another, and an overt act that results in damage.’” Hampton, 600 F.2d at 620–21 (quoting
Rotermund v. U.S. Steel Corp., 474 F.2d 1139 (8th Cir. 1973) (quotation marks omitted)).
This agreement can be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence. See Ball v. Paramount
Pictures, 169 F.2d 317, 319–20 (3d Cir. 1948) (holding that a “conspiracy may be inferred
when the concert of action ‘could not possibly be sheer coincidence’”).
11
Here, because the Adams allege that the physical beating, and not the noise, by
members of Teamsters Local 115 interfered with their right to free speech,9 we focus on
whether Rendell made an agreement with the Teamsters to use physical violence to interfere
with the speech of anti-Clinton demonstrators. (Appellants’ Br. 26–27.) The Adams argue
that Rendell’s testimony, the conduct of the city employees, and Woodring’s testimony
demonstrate the existence of an agreement between Rendell and members of Teamster Local
115 to violate the rights of anti-Clinton demonstrators by assaulting them. None of this
evidence, however, shows any such agreement.
The Adams allege that the conspiracy began with Rendell’s phone call to Morris
requesting the members of Teamsters Local 115 to attend the rally. The Adams argue that
this invitation essentially amounted to an implicit agreement to assault anti-Clinton
demonstrators because of “Local 115’s well-known history of violence.” (Appellants’ Br.
33.) The Adams have not pointed to any evidence that would allow a jury to draw such an
inference. As stated previously, Rendell explained that he had called Morris to ask him to
“[c]ome on down. Line the route . . . cheer the President” because he wanted to ensure “a
big and friendly turnout for the President.” (Rendell Dep. 112:5–6, 21–22, Jan. 2, 2002.)
Rendell stated that he wanted “in number and in [] loudness . . . to drown out the
demonstrators,” (id. at 114:9–10), but that he “didn’t want any interaction with the
demonstrators,” (id. at 114:20–21), and that “if there are demonstrators or hecklers, let them
9
The Adams counsel confirmed at oral argument that the Adams’ were not
complaining that their speech was “drowned out” by noise from the Teamsters.
12
be,” (id. at 115:16–18). He also emphasized that he wanted the event “to be extremely
peaceful and extremely positive.” (Id. at 114:22–23.)
Rendell further stated that he did not anticipate that there would be any violence at the
event, (id. at 116:13–20, 121:15–17, 122:5–7), and that he did not know that the Teamsters
would become violent, (id. at 119:19–22). Although Rendell admitted to being aware that
the Teamsters “get most emotional about . . . strikes and picket lines and replacement
workers” and might become violent “in that type of situation,” Rendell specifically stated
that he “had never seen them or had any knowledge of them getting involved in violence in
a political sense.” (Id. at 119:9–22.) In fact, Rendell recounted that the Teamsters “had done
political picketing and demonstrating, including against [Rendell]” but had never been
involved in violence in those situations. (Id. at 118:15–17.) There is simply nothing in
Rendell’s testimony from which a rational jury can infer that he had either an explicit or
implicit agreement with the Teamsters to have them assault anti-Clinton demonstrators.10
The behavior of the city police officers at the rally also does not indicate that an illicit
agreement existed. The deposed police officers stated that they were not aware of any
communication from Rendell to the Philadelphia police department instructing them to treat
10
While Feeley’s post-rally comment might suggest that the Teamsters have
engaged in violence previously, the comment does not contradict or add anything to
Rendell’s testimony. Rendell’s knowledge of previous Teamster violence in connection
with union activities would support a conclusion that violence was expected in that
context. Feeley’s comment, however, does not imply that Rendell had made an
agreement prior to the rally to use force to violate the rights of anti-Clinton
demonstrators. Rather, Feeley testified that when he made the unauthorized comments,
he did not know that Rendell had invited the Teamsters to the event. Adams, 2003 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 15477, at *28 n.24.
13
any particular protest group in a different manner. (Boyle Dep. 15:19–21, 23:2–14,
31:7–32:5, 45:18–46:3, Feb. 5, 2002; Mitchell Dep. 23:3–10, 27:11–28:16, Feb. 5, 2002;
McLaughlin Dep. 58:16–19, Feb. 15, 2002.) Rather, the officers testified that the rally was
handled according to the proper procedures. (Boyle Dep. 26:20–27:7, 31:14–20; Mitchell
Dep. 19:7–20; McLaughlin Dep. 24:11–23, 41:10–42:2.)
Woodring’s description of Morris’ post-rally conversation with Rendell also does not
suggest that Rendell had a prior agreement with the Teamsters to assault anti-Clinton
demonstrators. In his declaration, Woodring claimed that Rendell and Morris spoke after the
rally and that Rendell told Morris that “nothing is going to happen to [those] guys” that were
videotaped attacking the Adams. (Woodring Decl. ¶ 14.) Woodring also claimed that
Rendell promised to send Police Commissioner Timoney to Local 115 headquarters to
interview Teamster members, and that Rendell suggested that the Teamsters should file
private criminal complaints against Don Adams. (Id.) For purposes of this appeal, we
assume that a jury would have before it testimony consistent with the Woodring
declaration,11 but there is nothing in that description of the conversation that contradicts
Rendell’s testimony that he had not made any agreement prior to the rally for the Teamsters
to assault anti-Clinton demonstrators. Woodring did not state that Rendell admitted to any
such agreement or that Rendell apologized to Morris for allegedly involving him in any illicit
scheme. Even if we view the post-rally conversation as Rendell consoling Morris for the
negative media coverage of the Teamsters, such action does not indicate that Rendell had a
11
See supra n.4.
14
prior agreement with the Teamsters to assault any demonstrators.
Furthermore, the actions taken after the rally do not demonstrate that there was any
prior agreement between Rendell and the Teamsters to assault demonstrators, or any later
agreement to “whitewash” the actions of the Teamsters at the rally. The police officers who
investigated the Teamsters’ actions specifically stated that they did so without any influence
from Rendell or his office. (Motto Dep. 242:4–244:24, Dec. 6, 2001; Pagliaccetti Dep.
172:6–174:8, Mar. 18, 2002.) An officer also stated that he was not aware of any instruction
from the Mayor’s office to “whitewash” the Teamsters’ involvement in the incident.
(Mitchell Dep. 18:8–17.) Finally, Assistant District Attorney Bruce Sagel stated that Rendell
did not try to influence his prosecutorial decision-making in any way. (Sagel Dep.
337:8–339:15, Mar. 21, 2002.)
Significantly, four Teamsters were prosecuted and convicted for their actions at the
rally. Although Morris was not one of the Teamsters prosecuted, Sagel explained that it was
because Don Adams had failed to provide him with any information establishing a “causal
nexus” between Morris and the Teamsters who assaulted the Adams. (Id. at 334:15–335:18.)
Thus, the prosecutions that occurred after the incident also do not reflect the existence of any
conspiracy between Rendell and the Teamsters.12
In sum, there is no evidence sufficient to establish the existence of any conspiracy
between Rendell and any members of the Teamsters. There is no evidence, whether direct
12
The fact that Don Adams was prosecuted after an individual filed a private
criminal complaint against him does not demonstrate that Rendell and the Teamsters had
an agreement to assault anti-Clinton demonstrators.
15
or circumstantial, upon which a jury can reasonably infer that Rendell made an agreement
to violate the rights of anti-Clinton demonstrators by having them assaulting. Thus, because
the Adams failed to show state action through Rendell’s participation in a conspiracy to use
violence against demonstrators, the § 1983 claim fails.13
B. The Adams failed to state a civil conspiracy claim against Abraham.
In addition to the § 1983 claim, the Adams also claim that Abraham conspired with
Rendell and the Teamsters to engage in unlawful acts. As the District Court concluded, the
Adams did not sufficiently state a civil conspiracy claim.
The sufficiency of a claim for civil conspiracy under state law, brought in federal
court, is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley
Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 926 (9th Cir. 2001) (viewing a state law claim brought in
federal court under federal pleading standards); Simmons v. City of Philadelphia, 947 F.2d
1042, 1085 (3d Cir. 1991). Among these is Rule 8, which requires a plaintiff to set forth a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). We have held that conclusory allegations of “concerted action,” without
allegations of fact that reflect joint action, are insufficient to meet this requirement. Lynn
v. Christner, 184 F. App’x 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Abbott v. Latshaw, 164 F.3d
141, 148 (3d Cir. 1998)). Rather, to satisfy the requirements of Rule 8(a), the Adams’
13
Contrary to the Adams’ argument, Parkway Garage, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia,
5 F.3d 685 (3d Cir. 1993), is not applicable to this case. In Parkway Garage, the actions
of city officials that were contrary to established procedures were circumstantial evidence
of the Mayor’s improper motive. Id. at 696–700. As stated, in this case, there is no
evidence that any government officials acted improperly.
16
complaint must allege “at least some facts which could, if proven, permit a reasonable
inference of a conspiracy to be drawn.” Durham v. City and County of Erie, 171 F. App’x
412, 415 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 353 (3d Cir. 2005)). “This
requirement is established where the complaint sets forth a valid legal theory and it
adequately states the conduct, time, place, and persons responsible.” Lynn, 184 F. App’x at
185 (citing Evancho, 423 F.3d at 353).
Here, in Count XII of their Amended Complaint, the Adams allege that Abraham
conspired with the other Appellees “to engage in the unlawful acts set forth above.” (Am.
Compl. ¶ 145.) Incorporated in Count XII are additional allegations that Abraham made
false statements to a local Jewish women’s organization by stating that Don Adams “was
hitting women.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 64.) The Adams also allege that “Local 115, Morris,
Dioscon [sic], Sharon Hopkins and Nardone conspired with and/or reached an explicit and/or
implicit understanding with Defendant Abraham and the Philadelphia District Attorney’s
Office to wrongfully prosecute and try . . . Don Adams.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 91.) These
allegations are insufficient to state a claim for civil conspiracy.
Taken by itself, paragraph 145 is a purely conclusory allegation that does not provide
any facts that would permit a reasonable inference that Abraham conspired with any of the
Appellees. The other allegations contained in the Amended Complaint, which are
incorporated into Count XII, fail to remedy this deficiency. Paragraph 64 alleges that
Abraham published false statements about Don Adams, with the apparent implication that
the false statements were the result of a conspiracy. Even if Abraham did make the
17
statements about Don Adams, the Adams have not alleged any facts to support an inference
that Abraham made the statements because she was involved in a conspiracy. Similarly, the
allegations in paragraph 91 assert that the prosecution of Don Adams was due to a conspiracy
simply because Abraham prosecuted Don Adams following the receipt of a private criminal
complaint. Again, the allegation does not provide any facts regarding the time, place, or
conduct of the alleged conspiracy. It is a conclusory statement that is insufficient to meet the
Adams’ burden to state a claim for relief.
In sum, the Adams did not allege any factual basis that would permit a jury to draw a
reasonable inference that any conspiracy existed. Abraham’s brief correctly notes that
“[w]hile the pleading standard under Rule 8 is a liberal one, mere incantation of the words
‘conspiracy’ or ‘acted in concert’ does not talismanically satisfy the Rule’s requirements.”
Loftus v. Se. Penn. Transp. Auth., 843 F. Supp. 981, 987 (E.D. Pa. 1994). Accordingly, the
district court properly dismissed the civil conspiracy claim against Abraham for failure to
state a claim.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the District Court properly granted summary
judgment in favor of the Appellees on the Adams’ § 1983 claim and properly dismissed the
Adams’ civil conspiracy claim against Abraham. Accordingly, we will AFFIRM the orders
of the District Court.
18
Oberdorfer, J., concurring.
Defendant Rendell testified in his deposition that he asked Morris, the local
Teamsters leader, if he could “bring some people to the – to the demonstration?” in
support of President Clinton. “We want,” he said “in number and . . . in loudness . . . to
drown out the demonstrators” against the President. (Rendell Dep. 114:7-10, Jan. 2,
2002.)
A dictionary definition of “drown out” is: “to cause (a sound) not to be heard by
making a loud noise .”
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1977); see also Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary (10th ed. 1999).
As an original matter I would have directed the trial court to put to a jury the
question of whether the defendant was asking Morris to interfere with Clinton opponents’
First Amendment right to express publicly their opposition to the President.
However, plaintiffs’ briefs failed to make this point, and, at oral argument,
plaintiffs’ counsel specifically declined to make such a claim. See Maj. Op. at n.9.
Accordingly, I must concur in the court’s decision.
19