Filed: Nov. 19, 2020
Latest Update: Dec. 05, 2020
USCA11 Case: 20-12512 Date Filed: 11/19/2020 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-12512
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cv-00282-SPC-MRM
JOSEPH DENNIS GILBERTI, JR.,
P.E., an individual and licensed professional engineer,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
THE MOSAIC COMPANY,
MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
SARASOTA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
DESOTO COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY STATE ATTORNEYS OFFICE,
SARASOTA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,
PEACE RIVER MANASOTA WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY,
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
72 PARTNERS, LLC,
LUIS E. RIVERA,
Defendants-Appellees.
USCA11 Case: 20-12512 Date Filed: 11/19/2020 Page: 2 of 7
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(November 19, 2020)
Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph D. Gilberti, Jr., proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appellees
jointly move this Court for summary affirmance of the district court’s order,
arguing the court did not err in dismissing Gilberti’s complaint. Appellees also
argue that the district court did not err in denying Gilberti’s subsequent motion to
vacate the district court’s order and judgment. We grant their motion for summary
affirmance of the district court’s order.
I.
Summary disposition is appropriate where “the position of one of the
parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial
question as to the outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the
appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th
2
USCA11 Case: 20-12512 Date Filed: 11/19/2020 Page: 3 of 7
Cir. 1969).1 We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
See Barbour v. Haley, 471 F.3d 1222, 1225 (11th Cir. 2006). We may affirm the
district court’s judgment on any ground that appears in the record, whether or not
that ground was relied upon or even considered by the court below. Thomas v.
Cooper Lighting, Inc.,
506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
II.
This Court has recognized that “jurisdiction is not defeated by the possibility
that the averments [in a complaint] might fail to state a cause of action on which
[the plaintiff] could actually recover,” because it is “well settled that the failure to
state a proper cause of action on which relief can be granted is a question of law”
that must be decided after—and not before—the court has assumed jurisdiction
over the controversy. Barnett v. Bailey, 956 F.2d 1036, 1040–41 (11th Cir. 1992)
(alterations adopted) (quoting Bell v. Hood,
327 U.S. 678, 682,
66 S. Ct. 773, 776
(1946)). However, there are two exceptions to that rule: where (1) “the alleged
claim under the Constitution or federal statutes clearly appears to be immaterial
and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction,” or (2) “a claim is
1
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we adopted as
binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before October 1, 1981.
Id. at 1209.
3
USCA11 Case: 20-12512 Date Filed: 11/19/2020 Page: 4 of 7
wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” the suit may be dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
Bell, 327 U.S. at 682–83, 66 S. Ct. at 776.
Gilberti’s claim falls within the latter exception. Gilberti brought claims
against the appellees for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. He alleged that the
appellees purposely “hid[] Critical US underground Alkaline spring water rivers . .
. to increase Cancer rates, home foreclosures, land foreclosures, selective funding
to developers, infrastructure projects with unsafe designs, Medicaid fraud billings,
higher utility bills and medicine sales through a pattern of racketeering activity.”
The theory of Gilberti’s case seems to be that the appellees were killing children
and hiding “endless cancer preventing cleaner drinking water resources” for their
own profit, to the detriment of the public, who, he alleges, were being forced to
drink polluted, cancer-causing water. Gilberti sought, among other things, to have
the district court report the appellees to the President of the United States and
contact the Federal Reserve to “send $10,000,000,000” to build a pipeline “so
millions of Americans and Floridians have [access to] this unique Alkaline spring
water.” These allegations are “patently without merit.” Bell, 327 U.S. at 683, 66
S. Ct. at 776; see Hagans v. Lavine,
415 U.S. 528, 537–38,
94 S. Ct. 1372, 1378–
79 (1974) (claims that are “essentially fictitious” and “wholly insubstantial” are
4
USCA11 Case: 20-12512 Date Filed: 11/19/2020 Page: 5 of 7
due to be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (quotation marks
omitted)).
Indeed, the allegations in this case are similar—if not identical—to those in
a case this Court has already decided were wholly insubstantial. See Gilberti v.
Adrurra Grp., Inc., 810 F. App’x 806, 809 (11th Cir. 2020) (per curiam)
(unpublished). In Adrurra Group, a panel of this Court recognized that Gilberti
“failed to establish that the appellees, all of whom are Florida entities, conspired
together to keep the aquifer’s existence a secret, such that a RICO claim may have
been sufficiently alleged.” Id. That panel pointed to Gilberti’s allegations that the
Adrurra Group defendants increased cancer rates, raised water bills, and
encouraged the opioid epidemic, and held that Gilberti “offered no evidence or
factual support for his incredulous accusations that the appellees worked together”
to accomplish those goals.
Id. Gilberti’s complaint in the instant case fares no
better.
Gilberti’s argument to the contrary is not persuasive. He claims the district
court had subject matter jurisdiction because the question of jurisdiction and the
merits of his case are intertwined as described in Morrison v. Amway Corp., 323
F.3d 920 (11th Cir. 2003). See
id. at 925 (“We have cautioned, however, that the
district court should only rely on Rule 12(b)(1) if the facts necessary to sustain
jurisdiction do not implicate the merits of plaintiff’s cause of action.” (quotation
5
USCA11 Case: 20-12512 Date Filed: 11/19/2020 Page: 6 of 7
marks omitted) (alteration adopted)). Jurisdiction becomes intertwined with the
merits of a cause of action “when a statute provides the basis for both the subject
matter jurisdiction of the federal court and the plaintiff’s substantive claim for
relief.” Id. at 926 (quotation marks omitted). As this Court recognized in Adrurra
Group, the RICO statute does not provide the district court with a basis for subject
matter jurisdiction—it provides only a basis for Gilberti’s claim for relief. Adrurra
Grp., Inc., 810 F. App’x at 809; see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962, 1964(a). 2
Gilberti also argues the district court should have allowed the parties to
conduct discovery, which would have allowed the court to conclude his complaint
stated a claim. But a district court has broad discretion over discovery. And where
the facts alleged by Gilberti called the jurisdiction of the court into question, the
court did not err by first determining whether it had subject matter jurisdiction.
See Am. Civ. Liberties Union of Fla., Inc. v. City of Sarasota, 859 F.3d 1337, 1340
(11th Cir. 2017). Moreover, it was Gilberti’s burden to plead facts in his complaint
sufficient to establish that the district court had jurisdiction. St. Paul Mercury
Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co.,
303 U.S. 283, 287 n.10,
58 S. Ct. 586, 589 n.10
(1938). Gilberti failed to do so.
2
Section 1964(a) says that a district court “shall have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain
violations of section 1962,” but this is related to “whether a legislatively conferred cause of
action encompasses a particular plaintiff’s claim,” Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control
Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 127,
134 S. Ct. 1377, 1387 (2014), not whether a court has
subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332.
6
USCA11 Case: 20-12512 Date Filed: 11/19/2020 Page: 7 of 7
For these reasons, the district court correctly determined that Gilberti’s
complaint warranted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) because his claims were
“wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Bell, 327 U.S. at 682–83, 66 S. Ct. at 776.
Therefore, because there is no substantial question that the district court correctly
dismissed Gilberti’s complaint, we GRANT the appellees’ motion for summary
affirmance. 3 See Groendyke
Transp., 406 F.2d at 1162.
3
We need not address whether the district court properly denied Gilberti’s motion for
reconsideration because he failed to plainly and prominently raise it in his opening brief. See
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (“A party fails to
adequately brief a claim when he does not plainly and prominently raise it.” (quotation marks
omitted)).
7
