Trans Rail America, Inc.; Sienna Place, Inc. v. Hubbard Township

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0479n.06
No. 10-3236
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
TRANS RAIL AMERICA, INC.; SIENNA PLACE,
INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
HUBBARD TOWNSHIP; HUBBARD TOWNSHIP
BOARD OF TRUSTEES; FREDERICK HANLEY;
JONATHAN DOWELL; JOSEPH GLEYDURA;
HUBBARD TOWNSHIP PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION; JOHN PIETON; SUSAN
SICILIANO; HUBBARD TOWNSHIP BOARD OF
ZONING APPEALS; JEFFREY ROWLANDS;
DENNIE PARSONS; HEATHER O’HARA;
MARIA CAPEZZUTO; BENJAMIN M. HAYEK,
M.D.; TRUMBULL COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION; MARC E. DANN; SUSAN
WATKINS; MEGAN CARR; BENNETT AND
W I L L I A M S , E N V I R O N M E N T A L
CONSULTANTS, INC.; CAPRI S. CAFARO,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
TIM RYAN, U.S. Congressman for Ohio’s 17th
District, United States House of Representatives,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
OPINION

-- 1 of 5 --

No. 10-3236
Trans Rail America, et al v. Hubbard Township, et al
Before: McKEAGUE and WHITE, Circuit Judges; BARRETT, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs-Appellants, Trans Rail America, Inc. and Sienna Place, Inc.,
appeal the district court’s dismissal of their Amended Complaint, which alleges one claim of a 42
U.S.C. § 1983 civil conspiracy against multiple defendants. Because the district court did not err
in ruling that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
On November 26, 2008, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Trans Rail America, Inc. and Sienna Place,
Inc., (collectively “Trans Rail”) filed a Complaint against twenty-five Defendants that included
various local governmental agencies, state legislators, and public officials. Trans Rail sought over
$16 million in compensatory damages and $51 million in punitive damages for an alleged 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 civil conspiracy that included violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendments and Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States. (R. 1, Complaint,
at ¶¶ 41–43.) Trans Rail’s claim arose out of an application for a landfill operating license and a
request for a zoning variance. (Appellees Cafaro & Dann Br. 3.) The claim alleges that Defendants
conspired together and pursued policies specifically designed to hamper Trans Rail’s ability to
operate their businesses. (R. 47 at ¶ 27.)
On February 23, 2009, the district court conducted a case-management conference during
which it expressed concern about the vague nature of Trans Rail’s Complaint. In an Order issued
The Honorable Michael R. Barrett, United States District Judge for the Southern District of*
Ohio, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 5 --

No. 10-3236
Trans Rail America, et al v. Hubbard Township, et al
the next day, the district court labeled Trans Rail’s pleading a “shotgun complaint” and ordered the
Plaintiffs to amend. (R. 46, Order, at 1.)
Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint shortly thereafter. (R. 47, Amended Complaint.)
Several Defendants responded with motions to dismiss, which the district court granted. (R. 70,
Order & Decision.) The district court held, “there are no factual allegations that would support the
conclusory statements that each of the defendants conspired with one another,” and, “[t]he manner
in which the complaint was pled leaves each defendant and the Court guessing regarding the
underlying federal law violation.” (R. 70, Order & Decision, at 6, 7.) Appellants maintain that this
ruling was in error.
ANALYSIS
“On appeal, we review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Severe Records, LLC v. Rich, 658 F.3d 571, 578 (6th Cir.
2011). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “We must review
the complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, accept their factual allegations as true, and
determine whether Plaintiffs undoubtedly can prove no set of facts in support of their claims that
would entitle them to relief.” Severe Records, 658 F.3d at 578 (internal quotations and alterations
omitted). Legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences need not be accepted as true. Id.
“A civil conspiracy under § 1983 is ‘an agreement between two or more persons to injure
another by unlawful action.’” Bazzi v. City of Dearborn, 658 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting
3

-- 3 of 5 --

No. 10-3236
Trans Rail America, et al v. Hubbard Township, et al
Revis v. Meldrum, 489 F.3d 273, 290 (6th Cir. 2007)). “It is well-settled that conspiracy claims must
be pled with some degree of specificity and that vague and conclusory allegations unsupported by
material facts will not be sufficient to state such a claim under § 1983.” Spadafore v. Gardner, 330
F.3d 849, 854 (quoting Gutierrez v. Lynch, 826 F.2d 1534, 1538 (6th Cir. 1987)). To prevail on
a civil conspiracy claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) a “single plan existed,” (2) the defendants
“shared in the general conspiratorial objective” to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional or federal
statutory rights, and (3) “an overt act was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy that caused
injury” to the plaintiff. Hooks v. Hooks, 771 F.2d 935, 944 (6th Cir. 1985); Bazzi, 658 F.3d at 602.
Appellants argue that they have stated a claim for civil conspiracy with allegations of “some
specificity” that are “plausible.” (Appellants’ Br. 12, 24, 27, 30.) Based on a review of the
Amended Complaint, we disagree. The Amended Complaint’s first insurmountable flaw is that it
fails to plead facts showing the existence of “a single plan.” See Hooks, 771 F.2d at 944. This goes
to the district court’s conclusion that “there are no factual allegations that would support the
conclusory statements that each of the defendants conspired with one another.” (R. 70 at 6.)
Because conclusory allegations of a conspiracy are insufficient, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, the
district court was correct to dismiss Trans Rail’s claim on this basis.
The Amended Complaint’s second fatal flaw is that it does not tie any factual allegations to
the alleged constitutional violations and it does not identify how Defendants’ actions resulted in the
deprivation of constitutional rights. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege
that (1) a right secured by the Constitution or a federal statute has been violated, and (2) the violation
was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988);
4

-- 4 of 5 --

No. 10-3236
Trans Rail America, et al v. Hubbard Township, et al
Flanory v. Bonn, 604 F.3d 249, 253 (6th Cir. 2010). Furthermore, “[t]o establish a ‘conspiracy’
under a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must first demonstrate a constitutional deprivation.” Bauss
v. Plymouth Twp., 233 F. App'x 490, 496 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Hooks, 771 F.2d at 943-44). Trans
Rail’s Amended Complaint presents nothing more than legal conclusions in this respect, but “legal
conclusions need not be accepted as true,” and, “the complaint must set forth ‘some factual basis’
for the claims asserted.” Rondigo, L.L.C. v. Twp. of Richmond, 641 F.3d 673, 684 (6th Cir. 2011);
see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Trans Rail fails on both these points. Accordingly, the district
court was correct to dismiss Trans Rail’s claim on this basis.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
5

-- 5 of 5 --