Opinion
22-2851
11-17-2023
Israel Schvimmer, Miriam Schvimmer, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. New York City Police Detective Buckner, of the 79th Precinct, David A. Hansell, (Reg. #1950179) individually and as NYC Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services, Rebecca Elizabeth Szewczuk, (Reg. #4686903) individually and as Attorney for NYC ACS- Kings County (Family Court) and Attorney for Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, Ian Sangenito, (Reg. #3035235) individually and as Attorney for NYC ACS (Brooklyn Office) Kings County Family Court, John Anthony Morgano, (Reg. #4558565) individually and as Attorney for NYC ACS, and as Attorney for Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, Kathy Ann Best, individually and as Caseworker for NYC-ACS, Carmalita Cyrus, individually and as Supervisor #1 for NYC-ACS, Karen McNeely, individually and as Caseworker for NYC-ACS, Airat Bakara Adejobi, individually and as a Supervisor for NYC-ACS, Cecily Francis, individually and as NYC-ACS Supervisor, Beverly Drayton, individually and as Caseworker for NYC-ACS, Peter Hill, LCSW (LIC #028238) individually and as Caseworker for NYC-ACS, Syndia Semexant, individually and as Caseworker for NYC-ACS, Wanda Fraser, Christine, individually and as Caseworker for NYC-ACS, AKA Lottie Henderson, Nicholas P. Smith, LCSW (LIC #) individually and as Caseworker for NYC-ACS, Harvey S. Jacobs, Sally Simone Markowitz, (Reg. #3986031) individually, private Attorney Court appointed, Rabbi Azriel Juda Katz, Liaison for New York City Administration for Children's Services, Billa Tessler Bendet, LCSW (LIC #045031) individually and as Court appointed Therapist, Roderick Randall, City of New York, Joyce Hopkins, John Coakley, Deputy Clerk, Kings County Family Court, Defendants-Appellees, The Office of Court Administration, New York State Office of Children and Family Services, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, Jeanette Vega-Alvarez, (LIC #041405) individually and as NYC-ACS Supervisor FSU, Jonathen Caceras, individually and as Caseworker for NYC-ACS, Lorek Grazna, individually and as Caseworker for NYC-ACS, Chigewe Chisaramokwu, individually and as Caseworker for NYC-ACS, Sharon St. Hill, individually and as Caseworker for NYC-ACS, Emmanuelle Flax, individually and as Caseworker for NYC-ACS, Defendants.
FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: MIRIAM SCHVIMMER (Israel Schvimmer, on the brief), pro se, Brooklyn, NY. FOR MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: HANNAH J. SAROKIN (Rebecca L. Visgaitis, Jonathan Schoepp-Wong, on the brief), Of Counsel, for Hon. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES HILL AND SMITH: BRANDON BERKOWSKI (Eileen Becker, on the brief), Fullerton Beck LLP, North Haven, CT. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES III, RANDALL, HOPKINS, AND COAKLEY: DAVID LAWERENCE Assistant Solicitor General (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Ester Murdukhayeva, Deputy Solicitor General, on the brief), for Letitia James, Attorney General, State of New York, New York, NY. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE BENDET: David S. Rutherford, Rutherford &Christie, LLP, New York, NY FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE JACOBS: Harvey S. Jacobs, pro se, New York NY. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE KATZ: Azriel Juda Katz, pro se, Brooklyn, NY. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE MARKOWITZ: Sally Simone Markowitz, pro se, Highlands Ranch, CO.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
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 17th day of November, two thousand twenty-three.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Pamela K. Chen, Judge).
FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: MIRIAM SCHVIMMER (Israel Schvimmer, on the brief), pro se, Brooklyn, NY.
FOR MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: HANNAH J. SAROKIN (Rebecca L. Visgaitis, Jonathan Schoepp-Wong, on the brief), Of Counsel, for Hon. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY.
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES HILL AND SMITH: BRANDON BERKOWSKI (Eileen Becker, on the brief), Fullerton Beck LLP, North Haven, CT.
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES III, RANDALL, HOPKINS, AND COAKLEY: DAVID LAWERENCE Assistant Solicitor General (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Ester Murdukhayeva, Deputy Solicitor General, on the brief), for Letitia James, Attorney General, State of New York, New York, NY.
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE BENDET: David S. Rutherford, Rutherford &Christie, LLP, New York, NY
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE JACOBS: Harvey S. Jacobs, pro se, New York NY.
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE KATZ: Azriel Juda Katz, pro se, Brooklyn, NY.
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE MARKOWITZ: Sally Simone Markowitz, pro se, Highlands Ranch, CO.
PRESENT: JOSE A. CABRANES, ROBERT D. SACK MYRNA PEREZ, Circuit Judges.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Israel and Miriam Schvimmer ("the Schvimmers") appeal-pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291-the district court's judgment, entered on September 30, 2022, granting Defendants-Appellees' respective motions to dismiss. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
On June 21, 2021, the Schvimmers filed their Second Amended Complaint, alleging ten claims-nine federal claims and one claim under New York state law-against over twenty defendants. On September 29, 2022, the district court granted Defendants-Appellees' respective motions to dismiss and dismissed with prejudice all of the Schvimmers' claims against Defendants-Appellees. [ "We review the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff." Olson v. Major League Baseball, 29 F.4th 59, 71 (2d Cir. 2022) (citation omitted).
The district court dismissed some of the Schvimmers' claims against certain Defendants-Appellees sua sponte.
"In conducting our review, we construe complaints filed by pro se litigants liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest." Hunter v. McMahon, 75 F.4th 62, 67 (2d Cir. 2023) (brackets, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).
With those principles in mind, and after an independent review, we affirm the district court's judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its careful and well-reasoned memorandum and order. See generally Schvimmer v. Randall, 18-CV-7419 (PKC) (JRC), 2022 WL 4586086 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2022). In sum, the Schvimmers' Second Amended Complaint fails to state any plausible claims upon which relief may be granted against Defendants-Appellees. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
* * * Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.