From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brito v. Arthur

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Dec 22, 2010
403 F. App'x 620 (2d Cir. 2010)

Summary

affirming dismissal of conspiracy claim under § 1985 where "[a]side from conclusory assertions, Appellant failed to provide any factual allegations that Appellees engaged in a conspiracy."

Summary of this case from Todd v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp.

Opinion

No. 10-1388-pr.

December 22, 2010.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Kahn, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Bartolome Brito, pro se, Ossining, N.Y., for Appellant.

Dennis B. Schlenker, Esq., Albany, N.Y., for Appellees.

PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.


SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Bartolome Brito, pro se, appeals from the district court's judgment granting Defendants-Appellees' motion to dismiss his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history.

This Court reviews de novo a district court's dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). The complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are generally assumed to be true, this tenet is "inapplicable to legal conclusions." Ashcroft v. Iqbal ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

Because all of Appellant's claims were brought pursuant to either 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) or 1986, the existence of a conspiracy, as provided for under § 1985(3), was essential to each cause of action alleged. Gagliardi v. Vill. of Pawling, 18 F.3d 188, 194 (2d Cir. 1994). To state a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, Appellant must have alleged: (1) some racial or other class-based discriminatory animus underlying the Appellees' actions; and (2) that the conspiracy was aimed at interfering with Appellant's protected rights. Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 268, 113 S.Ct. 753, 122 L.Ed.2d 34 (1993). Complaints containing only "conclusory, vague, or general allegations of a conspiracy to deprive a person of constitutional rights" will be dismissed. Ostrer v. Aronwald, 567 F.2d 551, 553 (2d Cir. 1977) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Aside from conclusory assertions, Appellant failed to provide any factual allegations that Appellees engaged in a conspiracy, or that they were motivated by unlawful discriminatory intent or animus. Having conducted an independent review of the record and case law in light of these principles, we affirm the district court's judgment for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned memorandum decision and order. We have considered all of Appellant's arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Brito v. Arthur

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Dec 22, 2010
403 F. App'x 620 (2d Cir. 2010)

affirming dismissal of conspiracy claim under § 1985 where "[a]side from conclusory assertions, Appellant failed to provide any factual allegations that Appellees engaged in a conspiracy."

Summary of this case from Todd v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp.

affirming dismissal of §§ 1985 and 1986 claims where, "[a]side from conclusory assertions, [plaintiff] failed to provide any factual allegations that [defendants] engaged in a conspiracy, or that they were motivated by unlawful discriminatory intent or animus"

Summary of this case from Frederick v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg.

affirming dismissal of §§ 1985 and 1986 claims where, "[a]side from conclusory assertions, [plaintiff] failed to provide any factual allegations that [defendants] engaged in a conspiracy, or that they were motivated by unlawful discriminatory intent or animus"

Summary of this case from Frederick v. Wells Fargo Bank NA

affirming dismissal of § 1985 claim where “[a]side from conclusory assertions, [plaintiff] failed to provide any factual allegations that [defendants] engaged in a conspiracy, or that they were motivated by unlawful discriminatory intent or animus”

Summary of this case from Grimes v. Fremont Gen. Corp..
Case details for

Brito v. Arthur

Case Details

Full title:Bartolome BRITO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gloria Herron ARTHUR, Attorney at…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Dec 22, 2010

Citations

403 F. App'x 620 (2d Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Walker v. City of New York

A section 1985(3) conspiracy must also be motivated by some racial or perhaps otherwise class-based,…

Mullahey v. Zurlo

"A § 1985(3) conspiracy must also be motivated by some racial or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidious…