F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
JAN 31 2001
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
ARTHUR DURAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 00-2114
DEAN CARRIS; DOS GRIEGOS
CORPORATION; DOS GRIEGOS
LIMITED,
Defendants-Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
(D.C. No. CIV-98-1508-JP)
Submitted on the briefs:
Arthur Duran, Pro Se.
Joseph F. Canepa of Canepa, Vidal, Ahern & Hyatt, Santa Fe, New Mexico,
for Defendants-Appellees.
Before BALDOCK , ANDERSON , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM .
Plaintiff-appellant Arthur Duran appeals the district court’s order granting
defendants’ motion to dismiss his second amended complaint for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 1
I.
Because, in his brief, plaintiff failed to provide this court with a complete
recitation of the underlying facts of this case, the following depiction of the
factual background is gleaned from the district court’s order, Mr. Duran’s second
amended complaint, and defendants’ brief. In 1995, defendants were seeking to
build a subdivision on property adjacent to that owned by Mr. Duran. An
easement and boundary dispute arose and defendants refused to accept a
surveyor’s report obtained by Mr. Duran to settle the dispute. When Mr. Duran
threatened defendants with a lawsuit, defendant Dean Carris allegedly threatened
to tie him up in court disputes for ten years.
At the time this dispute arose, Mr. Duran sat on the county subdivision
review committee that was considering defendants’ application for approval of the
1
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-
planned subdivision. Mr. Duran alleged that while he was still serving on this
committee, Mr. Carris attempted to bribe him by offering to sell him the disputed
land at a favorable price in return for his vote and influence with the committee to
gain approval for the subdivision. Mr Duran also alleged that Mr. Carris blamed
him for the fact that the approval had been delayed and threatened him in order to
prevent him from speaking out against the subdivision. Mr. Duran averred that
Mr. Carris, wearing dark glasses and smoking a cigar, told him that if they were
in Chicago, “he wouldn’t be around.” R. Vol. 1, tab 39 at 5-6.
In October 1995, Mr. Duran filed suit in New Mexico state court over
the property dispute. Defendants counterclaimed, alleging trespass because
Mr. Duran was building a rock wall on land allegedly owned by defendants.
Defendants ultimately quitclaimed the disputed property to Mr. Duran and
dismissed their counterclaim.
In 1997, Mr. Duran filed a second lawsuit in New Mexico state court
seeking to reform his deed and to quiet title to the disputed property that was the
subject of the 1995 lawsuit. He claimed that this second lawsuit was necessary
because defendants had prevented him from litigating these issues in the first
lawsuit. Again defendants counterclaimed, alleging slander of title based on
Mr. Duran’s lis pendens on the property, and for abuse of process. In the summer
of 1998, the district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and
-3-
defendants dismissed their counterclaims. At the time of this appeal, Mr. Duran
was in the process of appealing this state court decision.
On December 10, 1998, Mr. Duran filed his first complaint in federal
district court. The complaint at issue here, his second amended complaint, was
filed on October 8, 1999. In this complaint, Mr. Duran alleged that defendants’
actions, by and through Mr. Carris, violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68, and a number of state
laws. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding that
Mr. Duran’s second amended complaint failed to state a claim under RICO, and
declining pendant jurisdiction over Mr. Duran’s state law claims. In so doing, the
court determined that Mr. Duran failed to establish a pattern of racketeering or
that the alleged predicate acts posed a threat of continued criminal activity. The
court concluded that the matter was basically “a boundary dispute and a dispute
over prescriptive rights between adjoining landowners,” which was settled and
unlikely to occur again. R. Vol. 1, tab 51 at 8. Mr. Duran appeals.
II.
“The court’s function on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not to weigh potential
evidence that the parties might present at trial, but to assess whether the
plaintiff’s complaint alone is legally sufficient to state a claim for which relief
may be granted.” Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind , 173 F.3d 1226,
-4-
1236 (10th Cir. 1999) (quotation omitted). The legal sufficiency of a complaint is
a question of law; hence, a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is reviewed de novo. Id.
In reviewing the district court’s decision we accept as true all well-pleaded
allegations in the complaint and construe them in favor of the nonmoving party.
Id. “Granting defendant’s motion to dismiss is a harsh remedy which must be
cautiously studied, not only to effectuate the spirit of the liberal rules of pleading
but also to protect the interests of justice.” Cottrell, Ltd. v. Biotrol Int’l, Inc. ,
191 F.3d 1248, 1251 (10th Cir. 1999) (quotations omitted).
Section 1962(c) of RICO makes it “unlawful for any person employed by
or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect,
interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in
the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity
or collection of unlawful debt.” RICO defines “pattern of racketeering activity”
as requiring “at least two acts of racketeering activity” within a ten-year period.
Id. § 1961(5).
In his complaint, Mr. Duran alleges that defendants engaged in a pattern of
racketeering activity including extortion and bribery. In order to satisfy RICO’s
pattern requirement, Mr. Duran must show two elements--“a relationship between
the predicates” and “the threat of continuing activity.” H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern
Bell Tel. Co. , 492 U.S. 229, 239 (1989) (quotation omitted). Interpreting RICO’s
-5-
legislative history, the Supreme Court stated that the pattern element is not
satisfied by a showing of relatedness alone. Id. at 240. “[I]t must also be shown
that the predicates themselves amount to, or that they otherwise constitute a threat
of, continuing racketeering activity.” Id.
Mr. Duran has alleged two predicate acts--bribery and extortion. He claims
that Carris’s offer to sell him the disputed land in exchange for his favorable
consideration of defendants’ application for approval of the subdivision
constituted bribery. He further contends that Mr. Carris committed extortion
when he threatened Mr. Duran with bodily injury in order to prevent him from
speaking out against the subdivision, when he threatened to tie him up in court for
ten years, and when he filed counterclaims in Mr. Duran’s two lawsuits.
The district court concluded, and we agree, that, even if the acts Mr. Duran
alleged are related as part of a common scheme, he has failed to show that they
pose a threat of continuing criminal activity. At best, what Mr. Duran alleged
is “actually a closed-ended series of predicate acts constituting a single
scheme . . . to accomplish a discrete goal [approval of the subdivision] directed
at a finite group of individuals [Mr. Duran] ‘with no potential to extend to other
persons or entities.’” Boone v. Carlsbad Bancorporation, Inc. , 972 F.2d 1545,
1556 (10th Cir. 1992) ( quoting Sil-Flo, Inc. v. SFHC, Inc. , 917 F.2d 1507, 1516
-6-
(10th Cir. 1990)). Therefore, “[t]hey do not . . . satisfy the H.J. Inc. test of
continuity.” Id.
We reject Mr. Duran’s argument that, because, in 1995, Mr. Carris
threatened to keep him involved in litigation for ten years, the threat of continued
criminal activity is met. Mr. Duran initiated all of the litigation surrounding this
dispute, and it appears that, except for Mr. Duran’s state court appeal of the grant
of summary judgment in his last action, the litigation is complete. At most, what
Mr. Duran alleged is a property dispute which turned hostile at times. He has not,
however, alleged the type of long-term criminal activity envisioned by Congress
when it enacted RICO. Therefore, the district court’s grant of defendants’ motion
to dismiss Mr. Duran’s RICO claims in his second amended complaint was
appropriate.
III.
Lastly, we address defendants’ request for sanctions alleging that Mr.
Duran’s pro se brief was actually “ghost-written” by his former attorney, Harry
Snow. We issued a show cause order requesting that Mr. Duran and Mr. Snow
show cause as to why this court should not sanction this behavior. We have
received and considered the parties’ response.
This court is concerned with attorneys who “author[] pleadings and
necessarily guide[] the course of the litigation with an unseen hand.” Johnson
-7-
v. Bd. of County Comm’rs , 868 F. Supp. 1226, 1231 (D. Colo. 1994). Fed. R. Civ.
P. 11(a) requires that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper shall
be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name, or if
the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party.”
Mr. Snow’s actions in providing substantial legal assistance to Mr. Duran without
entering an appearance in this case not only affords Mr. Duran the benefit of this
court’s liberal construction of pro se pleadings, see Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S.
519, 520-21 (1972), but also inappropriately shields Mr. Snow from responsibility
and accountability for his actions and counsel.
As stated in a recent law review article:
The duty of candor toward the court mandated by Model Rule
3.3 is particularly significant to ghostwritten pleadings. If neither
a ghostwriting attorney nor her pro se litigant client disclose the fact
that any pleadings ostensibly filed by a self-represented litigant were
actually drafted by the attorney, this could itself violate the duty of
candor. The practice of undisclosed ghostwriting might be
particularly problematic in light of the special leniency afforded
pro se pleadings in the courts. This leniency is designed to
compensate for pro se litigants’ lack of legal assistance. Thus, if
courts mistakenly believe that the ghostwritten pleading was drafted
without legal assistance, they might apply an unwarranted degree of
leniency to a pleading that was actually drafted with the assistance of
counsel. This situation might create confusion for the court and
unfairness toward opposing parties. It is therefore likely that the
failure to disclose ghostwriting assistance to courts and opposing
parties amounts to a failure to “disclose a material fact to a tribunal
when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or
fraudulent act by the client,” which is prohibited by Model Rule 3.3.
Undisclosed ghostwriting would also likely qualify as professional
misconduct under Model Rules 8.4(c) and (d), prohibiting conduct
-8-
involving a misrepresentation, and conduct that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice, respectively.
John C. Rothermich, Ethical and Procedural Implications of “Ghostwriting” for
Pro Se Litigants: Toward Increased Access to Civil Justice, 67 Fordham L. Rev.
2687, 2697 (1999) ( citing Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R 3.3(a)(2)) (footnotes
omitted).
It is disingenuous for Mr. Duran and Mr. Snow to argue that ghost writing
represents a positive contribution such as reduced fees or pro bono representation.
Either of these kinds of professional representation are analogous to the concept
of rescue in the field of torts. A lawyer usually has no obligation to provide
reduced fee or pro bono representation; that is a matter of conscience and
professionalism. Once either kind of representation is undertaken, however, it
must be undertaken competently and ethically or liability will attach to its
provider.
Competence requires that a lawyer conduct a reasonable inquiry and
determine that a filed pleading is not presented for an improper purpose, the
positions taken are nonfrivolous, and the facts presented are well grounded.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Ethics requires that a lawyer acknowledge the giving of
his advice by the signing of his name. Besides the imprimatur of professional
competence such a signature carries, its absence requires us to construe matters
-9-
differently for the litigant, as we give pro se litigants liberal treatment, precisely
because they do not have lawyers. See Haines, 404 U.S. at 520-21.
We determine that the situation as presented here constitutes
a misrepresentation to this court by litigant and attorney. See Johnson ,
868 F. Supp. at 1231-32 (strongly condemning the practice of ghost writing as
in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and ABA Model Code of Professional
Responsibility DR 1-102(A)(4)). Other jurisdictions have similarly condemned
the practice of ghost writing pleadings. See, e.g., Ellis v. Maine , 448 F.2d 1325,
1328 (1st Cir. 1971) (finding that a brief, “prepared in any substantial part by
a member of the bar,” must be signed by him); Ellingson v. Monroe (In re
Ellingson) , 230 B.R. 426, 435 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1999) (finding “[g]host writing”
in violation of court rules and ABA ethics); Wesley v. Don Stein Buick, Inc. ,
987 F. Supp. 884, 885-86 (D. Kan. 1997) (expressing legal and ethical concerns
regarding the ghost writing of pleadings by attorneys); Laremont-Lopez v.
Southeastern Tidewater Opportunity Ctr. , 968 F. Supp. 1075, 1077 (E.D. Va.
1997) (finding it “improper for lawyers to draft or assist in drafting complaints
or other documents submitted to the Court on behalf of litigants designated as
pro se”); United States v. Eleven Vehicles , 966 F. Supp. 361, 367 (E.D. Pa. 1997)
(finding that ghost writing by attorney for pro se litigant implicates attorney’s
duty of candor to the court, interferes with the court’s ability to supervise the
-10-
litigation, and misrepresents the litigant’s right to more liberal construction as
a pro se litigant).
We recognize that, as of yet, we have not defined what kind of legal advice
given by an attorney amounts to “substantial” assistance that must be disclosed to
the court. Today, we provide some guidance on the matter. We hold that the
participation by an attorney in drafting an appellate brief is per se substantial, and
must be acknowledged by signature. 2
In fact, we agree with the New York City
Bar’s ethics opinion that “an attorney must refuse to provide ghostwriting
assistance unless the client specifically commits herself to disclosing the
attorney’s assistance to the court upon filing.” Rothermich, supra at 2712 ( citing
Committee on Prof’l and Judicial Ethics, Ass’n of the Bar of the City of New
York, Formal Op. 1987-2 (1987)). We caution, however, that the mere assistance
of drafting, especially before a trial court, will not totally obviate some kind of
lenient treatment due a substantially pro se litigant. See id. at 2711-12. We hold
today, however, that any ghostwriting of an otherwise pro se brief must be
acknowledged by the signature of the attorney involved.
2
“[A]ttorneys must recognize that if they continue to provide assistance to
an ostensibly pro se litigant throughout the course of the litigation, then
disclosure of drafting assistance alone would be insufficient to satisfy their
obligations to the court.” Rothermich, supra at 2712 & n.211.
-11-
Finally, in response to this court’s show cause order, Mr. Snow claimed
the high ground for “representing” Mr. Duran on appeal at a reduced fee. He
suggests that his representation of Mr. Duran in the trial court afforded him
enough familiarity with the case to be able to offer Mr. Duran assistance with his
appeal at a much reduced fee. We note the irony in Mr. Snow’s rationalization
that he should be commended for assisting Mr. Duran on appeal at a reduced rate
and yet failing to continue that representation on appeal, or to even acknowledge
that some form of assistance was given. 3
We do not allow anonymous testimony
in court; nor does this circuit allow ghostwritten briefs. Therefore, we admonish
Mr. Snow that this behavior will not be tolerated by this court, and future
violations of this admonition will result in the possible imposition of sanctions.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico is AFFIRMED.
3
“It is also important to recognize the Model Rule 1.16, generally
prohibiting withdrawal that would materially harm the client’s interest, is of
particular importance to any analysis of ghostwriting.” Rothermich, supra
at 2697.
-12-