14-2485-cv Murphy v. City of Stamford



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED**
**ON OR AFTER J** **ANUARY 1,**  **2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY**  **F EDERAL**  **R ULE OF**  **A PPELLATE**  **P ROCEDURE**  **32.1 AND THIS COURT**  **’ S**  **L OCAL**  **R ULE**  **32.1.1. W**  **HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**
**DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX OR AN**
**ELECTRONIC DATABASE (**  **WITH THE NOTATION “**  **SUMMARY ORDER ”).**  **A PARTY CITING 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** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 14 th** **day of December, two thousand fifteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **PIERRE N. LEVAL,** 7 **GUIDO CALABRESI,** 8 **Circuit Judges**

**.** 9 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 11 **KATHLEEN A. MURPHY in her individual** 12 **capacity and as administrator for** 13 **KAREN A. MURPHY,** 14 **Plaintiffs-Appellants ,**  15 16 **-v.- 14-2485-cv** 17 18 **CITY OF STAMFORD, ET AL.,** 19 **Defendants-Appellees**

**.** 1 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 21 22 **FOR APPELLANT:** Kathleen A. Murphy, pro se
, 23 Stamford, CT. 24

1The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above.

1**FOR APPELLEE:** Vikki Cooper, Deputy Corporation 1 Counsel, Office of the 2 Corporation Counsel, City of 3 Stamford, Stamford, CT. 4 5 Appeal from orders of the United States District Court 6 for the District of Connecticut (Hall, J .). 7 8 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,** 9 **AND DECREED**that the orders of the district court are 10
**AFFIRMED**in part and the appeal is **DISMISSED**in part for 11 lack of jurisdiction. 12 13 Kathleen Murphy, pro se , appeals from the orders of the 14 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 15 (Hall, J .) dismissing her federal civil conspiracy claims 16 for failure to state a claim and remanding the remainder of 17 her claims to state court. 2We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural 19 history, and the issues presented for review. 20 21 Murphy alleges that a Stamford tax assessor improperly 22 assessed the value of her property and that the Stamford 23 Board of Assessment Appeals (the “Board”) mishandled her 24 appeal of the assessment determination because a Board 25 member was conflicted, harbored animus toward Murphy, and 26 failed to consider Murphy’s evidence. Murphy brought claims 27 for federal civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3), 28 1986, for due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 29 various state law claims. The district court dismissed her 30 §§ 1985(3) and 1986 claims as barred by the intracorporate 31 conspiracy doctrine, remanded her § 1983 claims pursuant to 32 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 33 by reason of the prohibition of the Tax Injunction Act, 28 34 U.S.C. § 1341, and remanded her state law claims after 35 declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 36 37

2Although Murphy’s notice of appeal stated that she was appealing only from the district court’s denial of reconsideration, we will consider the notice of appeal to encompass the district court’s underlying dismissal and remand order as well. See “R” Best Produce, Inc. v. DiSapio , 540 F.3d 115, 121-22 (2d Cir. 2008).

2**1.** We review the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo
, 1 accept as true all factual allegations, and draw all 2 reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Fink v. 3 Time Warner Cable , 714 F.3d 740-41 (2d Cir. 2013). To make 4 out a § 1985(3) claim, the plaintiff must allege a 5 conspiracy between two or more persons, Girard v. 94th St. & 6 Fifth Ave. Corp. , 530 F.2d 66, 70 (2d Cir. 1976), and under 7 the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, the “officers, 8 agents, and employees of a single corporate entity are 9 legally incapable of conspiring together,” Hartline v. 10 Gallo , 546 F.3d 95, 99 n.3 (2d Cir. 2008)(internal quotation 11 marks omitted). As the district court determined, Murphy’s 12 conspiracy claims are barred by the intracorporate 13 conspiracy doctrine: the defendants were employees or agents 14 of Stamford, the alleged conspiratorial activities pertained 15 to and were motivated by the defendants’ respective public 16 duties, and all of the alleged discriminatory conduct 17 pertains to a single act (the wrongful property assessment). 18 19 **2.** Murphy’s challenge to the order remanding her 20 § 1983 claims is dismissed because 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) 21 deprives us of appellate jurisdiction. Price v. J&H Marsh & 22 McLennan, Inc. , 493 F.3d 55, 58-59 (2d Cir. 2007). We 23 likewise lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s 24 denial of reconsideration. Petrello v. White , 533 F.3d 110, 25 116 (2d Cir. 2008). 26 27 To the extent Murphy appeals from the remand of her 28 state law claims, we affirm the district court. Once the 29 district court determined that it lacked subject matter 30 jurisdiction to consider the § 1983 claims, it could not 31 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any related state 32 law claim. Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund , 81 33 F.3d 1182, 1187 (2d Cir. 1996). As to the state law claims 34 that were related to the § 1985(3) claims: once the district 35 court dismissed the § 1985(3) claims, it did not abuse its 36 discretion in declining to exercise supplemental 37 jurisdiction over the state law claims. See Carnegie-Mellon 38 Univ. v. Cohill , 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). 39 40 41 42 43 44

3Accordingly, and finding no merit in Murphy’s other 1 arguments, we hereby **AFFIRM** the orders of the district court 2 in part and **DISMISS** the appeal in part for lack of 3 jurisdiction. 4 5 FOR THE COURT: 6 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 7 8

4