Spiteri v. Camacho

Full title: Carmel Spiteri, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Honorable Ricardo Camacho, Supreme…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Date published: Nov 10, 2015

622 F. App'x 9 (2d Cir. 2015)

Opinion

13-3806

11-10-2015

Carmel Spiteri, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Honorable Ricardo Camacho, Supreme Court Judge, sued in his official capacity only, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Sonoma County, et al., Defendants.

FOR PLAINTIFF -APPELLANT: Carmel Spiteri, pro se, Marsascala, Malta. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Michael S. Belohlavek, Senior Counsel, Mark H. Shawhan, Assistant Solicitor General, of counsel, New York, N.Y.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 10^th day of November, two thousand fifteen. PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, PETER W. HALL, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.

FOR PLAINTIFF -APPELLANT:

Carmel Spiteri, pro se, Marsascala, Malta.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES:

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Michael S. Belohlavek, Senior Counsel, Mark H. Shawhan, Assistant Solicitor General, of counsel, New York, N.Y. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brodie, J.).

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

Appellant Carmel Spiteri, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his complaint. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), accepting all factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). To survive a motion to dismiss, 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 (2007), and "allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged," Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

To the extent Appellant's brief raises claims against appellees other than Michelle Harrington or Michelle Mulligan, those claims were dismissed previously and will not be revisited. Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc., 736 F.3d 198, 208 (2d Cir. 2013). As to the claims against Harrington and Sullivan, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly dismissed Appellant's claims. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough September 2013 decision.

We have considered Appellant's arguments and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court and DENY Appellant's several motions for judicial notice.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk