Curtis L. Sparks, Jr. v. Contessa Bell

Case: 15-12123 Date Filed: 02/08/2016 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-12123
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cv-01582-SLB
CURTIS L. SPARKS, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CONTESSA BELL,
DONALD SCOTT,
KELVIN PALMAR,
JOHN CROCKER,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(February 8, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-12123 Date Filed: 02/08/2016 Page: 2 of 5
Curtis Sparks appeals pro se from the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of
his civil rights case brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Sparks brought
claims against several defendants connected to a physical altercation that Sparks
had with another passenger while riding a public bus in Alabama in 2009, and
Sparks’s state court action arising from that altercation. The district court
dismissed his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) for frivolity
and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On appeal, Sparks
argues that he stated a cognizable claim because he demonstrated that the
defendants participated in a racially motivated conspiracy to commit perjury at his
state court trial, and in doing so deprived Sparks of his constitutional rights to a
fair trial and equal protection of the laws.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim
under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and apply the same standards governing dismissals under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252
(11th Cir. 2008). We accept the allegations in the complaint as true and construe
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Mills v. Foremost Ins. Co., 511
F.3d 1300, 1303 (11th Cir. 2008). To survive dismissal, the plaintiff’s complaint
must contain sufficient facts, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949
(2009). Naked assertions without further factual enhancement and “[t]hreadbare
2
Case: 15-12123 Date Filed: 02/08/2016 Page: 3 of 5
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Id. We liberally construe pro se pleadings, and hold
them to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by an attorney. Bingham v.
Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
We review a district court’s sua sponte dismissal for frivolity under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for abuse of discretion. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160
(11th Cir. 2003). The district court has a range of choice in exercising its
discretion, and we will not disturb its decision if it stays within the range of
reasonableness and is not influenced by a mistake of law. Zocaras v. Castro, 465
F.3d 479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006). “A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit
either in law or fact.” Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001).
To maintain a § 1983 action, the plaintiff must allege conduct that was
“committed by a person acting under color of state law and must result in a
deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws
of the United States.” Bendiburg v. Dempsey, 909 F.2d 463, 468 (11th Cir. 1990).
A plaintiff may state a claim under § 1983 for conspiracy to violate constitutional
rights, which requires that the plaintiff show an agreement by the defendants to
violate his rights. Rowe v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 279 F.3d 1271, 1283–84 (11th
Cir. 2002). The alleged conspiracy must “result[ ] in the actual denial of some
3
Case: 15-12123 Date Filed: 02/08/2016 Page: 4 of 5
underlying constitutional right.” Grider v. City of Auburn, 618 F.3d 1240, 1260
(11th Cir. 2010).
A cause of action for conspiracy to interfere with civil rights is also
cognizable under §§ 1985(2) and (3). See 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Section 1985(2)
provides a cause of action for a conspiracy to impede, hinder, obstruct, or defeat
justice “with intent to deny any citizen the equal protection of the laws.” Id.
§ 1985(2). Section 1985(3) provides a cause of action for a conspiracy to
“depriv[e], either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal
protection of the laws.” Id. § 1985(3). A claim under either section requires a
showing that a racial or class-based animus motivated the conspirators’ actions.
See Chavis v. Clayton Cty. Sch. Dist., 300 F.3d 1288, 1292 (11th Cir. 2002)
(§ 1985(2) claims); Park v. City of Atlanta, 120 F.3d 1157, 1161 (11th Cir. 1997)
(per curiam) (§ 1985(3) claims).
Upon review of the record and consideration of Sparks’s brief, we affirm.
Viewing the amended complaint in the light most favorable to Sparks, he did not
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. He has alleged only
unrelated actions taken by each individual defendant in the course of his altercation
and subsequent state trial. He has alleged that these actions demonstrated a
conspiracy, but he has failed to allege any specific facts in support of this
4
Case: 15-12123 Date Filed: 02/08/2016 Page: 5 of 5
conclusory legal assertion that a conspiracy by the defendants existed. Sparks has
also not stated how the alleged conspiracy deprived him of his constitutional rights.
We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal. Sparks’s motions to
introduce new evidence and to correct or amend his appellate brief are also
DENIED.
AFFIRMED.
5