## Facts

- Damian Sinclair acquired a distressed national bank in Arkansas after obtaining OCC approval for a change in control and implementing a business plan involving purchases of non-prime consumer loan pools.
- After interagency criticism of the approval and concerns about the bank’s condition and operations, the Comptroller took supervisory and enforcement actions against the bank.
- The Comptroller declared the bank insolvent and appointed the FDIC as receiver under 12 U.S.C. §§ 191 and 1821(c)(2)(A)(ii).
- Sinclair and the bank initially sought equitable relief to remove the FDIC as receiver; the district court denied interim relief, and the FDIC sold the bank’s assets during the litigation.
- Sinclair then filed an amended complaint seeking damages only, suing the Comptroller and OCC employees in their individual capacities and alleging First and Fifth Amendment violations (Bivens-type claims), violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982, and a civil RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
- Sinclair alleged that the regulators targeted him and the bank due to hostility toward the bank’s lending model and that the challenged actions were retaliatory, discriminatory, and part of a racketeering “enterprise.”

## Issues

1. Whether the amended complaint plausibly stated Bivens-type claims against OCC officials for alleged First Amendment retaliation and Fifth Amendment due process/equal protection violations arising from bank supervisory and receivership actions.
2. Whether the complaint stated claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982 based on alleged discriminatory interference with contractual or property rights.
3. Whether the complaint stated a civil RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) by adequately alleging an enterprise, a pattern, and predicate racketeering activity tied to the officials’ regulatory conduct.
4. Whether the court needed to reach absolute-immunity defenses where dismissal could be affirmed for failure to state a claim.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of the amended complaint in its entirety.
- The court held that the pleading failed to state any claim for relief under the asserted constitutional, civil-rights, or RICO theories.
- The court affirmed without deciding whether defendants were entitled to absolute immunity for the challenged regulatory actions.

## Legal Principles

- An appellate court may affirm a dismissal on any ground supported by the record, including failure to state a claim, without deciding asserted immunity defenses.
- Allegations of improper motive do not convert routine supervisory and enforcement measures by federal bank regulators into actionable constitutional torts absent specific facts satisfying the elements of a recognized constitutional claim.
- Claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982 require nonconclusory allegations identifying a protected contractual or property interest and facts supporting discriminatory denial of that interest.
- A civil RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) requires plausible allegations of an enterprise and a pattern of statutorily defined predicate racketeering acts; ordinary regulatory actions, without pleaded predicate crimes, do not satisfy RICO.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld dismissal of a damages action against OCC officials because the complaint’s constitutional, §§ 1981/1982, and RICO theories rested on conclusory characterizations of bank-regulatory actions and did not plead facts meeting the required legal elements; the court therefore affirmed without addressing absolute immunity.


Sinclair v. Hawke, 314 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 2003)