702 F. App'x 730
10th Cir.2017Background
- Payn, pro se, sued eighty defendants (family members, attorneys, accountants, trustees) alleging embezzlement, fraud, forged documents, wrongful transfers, and related misconduct tied to a family trust and businesses.
- Original complaint invoked federal statutes including RICO, various federal criminal statutes, and the Patriot Act; factual allegations were vague and failed to tie specific defendants to specific wrongful acts.
- District court dismissed the original complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), finding no viable federal claim and declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
- Payn filed an amended complaint adding claims under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 but still did not allege defendants acted under color of state law or plead the required elements with particularity.
- The district court dismissed the amended complaint on the merits for lack of federal jurisdiction; Payn appealed, challenging the dismissal but not curing pleading deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Payn pleaded a colorable RICO claim to invoke federal question jurisdiction | Payn contended RICO applies to the defendants' alleged fraud and sought relief under RICO | Defendants argued Payn's allegations were conclusory, failed to plead RICO elements with particularity, and did not link defendants to predicate acts | Court: Dismissed — pleadings insufficient to state a private RICO claim and thus no federal jurisdiction |
| Whether Payn stated any private cause of action under the Patriot Act | Payn asserted forgery and fraudulent bank account activity implicated the Patriot Act | Defendants noted the Patriot Act’s private remedies are limited and Payn did not identify a valid statutory private right or sue the United States where applicable | Court: Dismissed — no plausible private right under the Patriot Act alleged |
| Whether federal criminal statutes give a private right of action | Payn relied on federal criminal statutes to support federal jurisdiction | Defendants argued criminal statutes generally do not create private civil causes of action | Court: Dismissed — criminal statutes do not furnish a private civil remedy here |
| Whether § 1985 or the Fourteenth Amendment supports federal jurisdiction against private actors | Payn alleged a conspiracy under § 1985 and Fourteenth Amendment violations by defendants | Defendants argued Fourteenth Amendment applies only to state action; § 1985 requires either interference with federal officers or class-based, invidious discrimination (which Payn did not allege) | Court: Dismissed — no state action alleged; § 1985 allegations fail as pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (explaining the Fourteenth Amendment applies to state action, not private conduct)
- McKenzie v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., Dist. Dir., 761 F.3d 1149 (federal-question jurisdiction exists only for colorable federal claims; dismissal warranted for insubstantial or implausible federal claims)
- Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244 (describing elements required to plead a civil RICO claim)