George R. Simpson v. Randall James Hamilton Zwinge

Case: 13-10849 Date Filed: 09/25/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10849
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cv-60817-RSR
GEORGE R. SIMPSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RANDAL JAMES HAMILTON
ZWINGE, a.k.a. James Randi,
D. J. GROTHE, President of James
Randi Educational Foundation,
JAMES RANDI EDUCATIONAL
FOUNDATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 25, 2013)
Before BARKETT, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-10849 Date Filed: 09/25/2013 Page: 2 of 3
George Simpson, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his breach of
contract claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On appeal,
Simpson contends the district court wrongly concluded his complaint failed to
establish the creation of a valid contract with the James Randi Educational
Foundation (JREF). He claims he submitted a valid application for JREF’s “One
Million Dollar Challenge,” which sought demonstrations of “psychic, supernatural,
or paranormal abilities,” and that the district court incorrectly found Simpson’s
application to be invalid because he failed to describe a sufficiently paranormal
ability for JREF to test.
We review a district court ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion de novo. Hill v.
White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The complaint is viewed in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff, and all of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded facts are
accepted as true. Hill, 321 F.3d at 1335. Further, “[i]n the case of a pro se action
. . . the court should construe the complaint more liberally than it would formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Powell v. Lennon, 914 F.2d 1459, 1463 (11th Cir.
1990). While a complaint does not need detailed factual allegations, “a plaintiff’s
obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more
than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
2
Case: 13-10849 Date Filed: 09/25/2013 Page: 3 of 3
of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65
(2007).
The breach of contract claim was properly dismissed. The pro se complaint,
even when construed liberally, does not plead enough facts to establish a valid
contract. See Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1272 (11th Cir. 2009)
(stating that to prove the existence of a valid contract under Florida law, a plaintiff
must plead facts showing offer, acceptance, consideration, and sufficient
specification of the essential terms). Simpson did not plead sufficient facts to
establish acceptance of JREF’s website advertisement for its One Million Dollar
Challenge, which required Simpson to fully demonstrate his paranormal ability
under “satisfactory observation.” See United States v. Chandler, 376 F.3d 1303,
1312 (11th Cir. 2004) (noting that the rules of a private contest represent an offer
for a unilateral contract, and that such offer may be accepted by fully performing
all the contest’s terms and conditions). At most, Simpson’s application referenced
his prior acts of decryption, which were not performed under JREF’s observation.
Moreover, although Simpson refers to his application and his correspondence with
JREF as “acceptance,” labeling them as such is merely conclusory and does not
meet Rule 8’s pleading standards. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1964-65. Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the breach of contract claim.
AFFIRMED.
3