Barreto v. Dillon

Full title: Juarez F. Barreto, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis Dillon, individually and…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Nov 19, 2007

SUMMARY ORDER No. 06-0962-cv (2d Cir. Nov. 19, 2007)

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER No. 06-0962-cv.

November 19, 2007.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

For Plaintiff-Appellant: Juarez F. Barreto, pro se, Rome, NY.

For Defendants-Appellees: David Goldin, Nassau County District Attorney's Office, Mineola, NY.

PRESENT: HON. JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, HON. ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges. HON. NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, District Judge. ^_

_ The Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Appellant Juarez F. Barreto, pro se, appeals from a February 6, 2006 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Spatt, J.) dismissing his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. We presume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case and the arguments on appeal.

This Court reviews a district court's dismissal of a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) de novo. See Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir. 2001). Thus, this Court accepts all the material allegations of the complaint as true, making all inferences in favor of the non-moving party, see King v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 284 F.3d 352, 356 (2d Cir. 2002), and will not affirm a district court's dismissal unless it appears beyond doubt that a plaintiff can present no set of supporting facts that would entitle him to relief, see Thompson v. Carter, 284 F.3d 411, 416 (2d Cir. 2002). In addition, a pro se plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to amend his complaint prior to its dismissal for failure to state a claim unless the court can rule out any possibility, however unlikely it might be, that an amended complaint would succeed in stating a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795-96 (2d Cir. 1999).

Having reviewed the record de novo, we affirm the judgment dismissing the complaint and the amended complaint for the reasons stated by the district court. Further, appellant's argument on appeal that the district court erred by failing to consider his request for sanctions is without merit because the defendants' actions were protected by absolute immunity. See Pinaud v. County of Suffolk, 52 F.3d 1139, 1149-50 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that absolute immunity covers claims of malicious prosecution, making false representations to obtain a plea agreement and breach of that agreement, and manufacturing a charge by making misrepresentations to grand jury).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.