09-2365-cv Burke v. Acosta 

### UNI TED S TATES COURT OF AP P EALS

FO R TH E SEC O N D C IRC U IT SU MM ARY ORDER

RULING S B Y SUM M ARY O RDER D O NOT HAV E P RECEDENTI AL EFF ECT. CITATIO N TO A S UM M ARY O RDER FILED ON O R AFTER JANUA RY 1, 20 07 , IS P ERM ITTED AN D IS G OV ERNED BY FEDERAL R ULE OF APPELLATE PROCED URE 32 .1 AND THIS C OURT’S LO CAL RU LE 32. 1.1 . W HEN C ITING A SUM M ARY ORDER I N A D OCUMENT FILED W ITH TH IS COURT, A

PARTY MUST CITE EITH ER THE FEDERAL APPEND IX OR A N ELECTRO NIC D ATABASE (WITHTHE NOTATI ON “S U MMAR Y O RD E R ”) . A PA R T Y C I T I N G A SU MMAR Y O RD E R MU ST SE R V E A C O PY O F IT ON ANY PARTY NO T REPRESENTED BY COU NSEL.

At a stat ed ter m of the United S tate s Court of App eals for the Second Circuit, he ld a t t he Da nie l P at r ic k M oy niha n Un it e d St at e s C our th ous e , 5 00 P e ar l St r e e t, in th e Ci tyof N e w Yo r k, o n t he 14 dayof M ay , t wo t hous and t e n. th PRES ENT: J ON O. NE WMAN,

J OHN M. WAL KER, J R., GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges

.

___________________________________________________ Br ian B urke, Plaintif

f-Appellant , v. No. 09-2365-c v Sol omo n A c os ta , F a sc or e /G re at We st, MT A/ NY C Tr ans it A u th o r i ty, Defendants-A ppellees

.

____________________________________________________ FOR APPEL LANT: Br ian B urke, pro s e , New Y ork, Ne w York. FOR APPEL L EES FASCORE/ GREAT WEST: Virg inia Shea (Micha el J . Z are tsky , on the brief ), Chorpenning , Good, Carlet & Gar rison New Y ork, Ne w York.2

F OR APP EL L EE S MT A/

NY C TRANSI T AUTHO RI TY: Ching Wah Chin, Associate Counsel, for J ames B . Henly , Gene ral Counsel for the Metropolitan Tra

nsportation Authority , New York, Ne w York. 1 Appea l from a judg ment of the United States District Court for the Southern District 2 of Ne w York ( Castel, J. ). 3 UP ON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, 4 AND DECREED that the judg ment of the district cour t be AF F IRM ED

. 5 Br ian B urke, pro s e , appea ls from the district court’ s April 2009 judgme nt 6 dismiss ing his c omplaint. W e assume the parties’ familiarity with the underly

ing f acts a nd 7 the proc edura l history of the c ase. 8 As an in iti a l matte r, “ we c on str ue no tic e s o f a

pp e a l li be ra lly , ta

kin gthe pa

rt ie s’ 9 intentions int o acc ount.” Sahu v. Union Carbide Corp. , 548 F.3d 59, 65 ( 2d Cir. 2008) 10 (i nte rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s o mitte d) . H e re , w e lib e ra lly c on str ue B ur ke ’s pro s e notice of 11 appea l to request re view of the followingdistrict court orde rs: the August 2008 order 12 g rantingthe Def endants-A

ppellees’ motions t o dismiss Bur ke’s amended c omplaint, the 13 Marc h 2009 order denying B urke’ s motions for leave to f ile second a

nd third amende d 14 complaints, and the Apr il 2009 order de nying both B urke’ s motion for rec onsideration of 15 the Marc h 2009 order and his motion for leave to file a four th amended c omplaint. 16 Ho we ve r, we do no t in fe r f ro m B ur ke ’s no tic e of

a pp e a l, whic h in dic ate s th at he a pp e a ls 17 the April 2009 judg ment, any intent to appeal the district c ourt’s subseque nt May 2009 18 denial of B urke’ s second motion for r econside ration. Se e id . at 65 -6 6 ( “ [O]ur a pp e llate 19 jurisdiction depends on whe ther the intent to appe al from a decision is clea

r on the fa ce of

, 20 or

c an b e inf

e rr e d f ro m, t he no tic e [] of

a pp e a l.” ) ( int e rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s a nd br a c ke ts3 1 omitted). 2 We review de novo a district cour t’s dismiss al of a

complaint for lac k of subject 3 matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a c laim upon which re lief may be g rante d, 4 construingthe complaint libera lly , “ac ceptingall fac tual alleg ations in the complaint as 5 true, a

nd draw ing a ll reasona

ble infer ence s in the plaintiff' s favor .” Shomo v. City of New 6 Y

or k, 579 F.3d 176, 183 ( 2d Cir. 2009) (interna l quotation marks omitted). A complaint 7 must plead “e noug h fac ts to state a claim to re lief that is plausible on its face .” Be ll 8 At lan ticCor

p. v . Two mb ly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “Apleadingthat offe rs ‘labe ls and 9 c on c lus ion s’

. . . w ill no t do . N or do e s a c omp la int

su ff ic e if it t e nd e rs ‘n ake d a sse rt ion s’ 10 devoid of ‘f

urther f actua l enhanc ement.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct . 1937, 1949 (2009), 11 qu o t i n g Twom bly , 5 50 U. S. at 55 5, 55 7 ( c itatio n a nd br a c ke ts o mitte d) . A lth ou g h a ll 12 fa c tua l a lle g atio ns in t he c omp la int

are a ssume d to be tr

ue , th is t e ne t is “ ina

pp lic a ble to 13 leg al conc lusions.” Id . In d e te rm ini ngwh e the r a c omp la int

satis fi e s th e pla

us ibi lity 14 standard, w e construe pro s e submissi ons liberally

. Se e Ha rri s v . M ill s , 572 F.3d 66, 72 15 (2 d Ci r. 20 09 ); se e als o Shomo , 579 F.3d at 183. 16 He re , th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s Au gus t 20 08 or de r p ro pe rl y de te rm ine d th at B ur

ke fa ile d to 17 state a pla

usible fede ral c laim in his first amended complaint, bec ause a lthough he provided 18 numerous “la bels and c onclusions,” he made insufficient fa ctual alleg ations to state a 19 plausible claim. See I qbal , 1 29 S. Ct . at 19 49 ; Twom bly , 550 U.S. at 555. 20 The district cour t identified potential fede ral c laims that Burke might ra ise in an 21 amende d complaint, and the c ourt stay ed its order to permit mediation to take plac e. Af ter 22 me diatio n f

a ile d, B ur ke mov e d to fi le a

se c on d a nd thi rd ame nd e d c omp la int , b ut h e a g a in 23 fa ile d to a lle g e fa c ts s uf fi c ie nt t o s tate a

pla us ibl e fe de ra l c la im a

nd fa ile d to e sta

bli shB ur ke ’s Ti tle VI Ic la ims me ri t so me dis c us sio n. Hi s ame nd e d c omp la int on ly va gue ly 1 ref err ed to a Title VI Iclaim. Honoringits obli g ation to construe pro se complaints broadly , the district court identified this possible claim and sug g ested that B urke make his intentions clear er. Alongwith his proposed Second Ame nded Complaint (“SAC”), B urke attached a rig ht to sue letter showinghe had e x hausted his administrative re medies and that he was a uthorized to sue, inter alia, the New Y ork City Transpor tation Authority

(“N YCTA”) . Construed liberally , the SAC and the proposed Thir d Amended Complaint alleg ed that F ASCore/Gre at West, Acosta and Z a g a j e s k i v i o l at e d

T i t l e V II, b u tth e am e n d e d c o mp l a i n t s d i d

n o tc l ar i f y w h e th e r an y T i t l e V II re ta liatio n c la im w a s d ir e c te d at th e NY CTA . T he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s Ma rc h 2 00 9 O rd e r c or

re c tly dismiss ed Title VI Iclaims ag ainst FASCore/ Gr eat West, Acosta, a nd Z ag ajeski. In light of the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s sp e c if

ic ins tr uc tio n to B ur

ke to c lari fy

wh e the r h e int e nd e d to br ingsu c h a c la im a g a ins t th e NY CTA , B ur

ke ’s fa ilure to d o s o w a ive s a ny su c h c la im. 4 1 c omp le te div e rs ity of the pa rt ie s, a s r e qu ir e d f

or div e rs ity jur isd ic tio n. Ac c or din g ly , in its 2 Marc h 2009 order , the district court did not abuse its discre tion in denying B urke’ s motions 3 for lea

ve to amend his c omplaint. Se e Sta rr v . S on yBM G M us ic En te r. , 592 F.3d 314, 321 4 (2d Cir. 2010) (“ We reviewthe denial of leave to amend a c omplaint for abuse of discre tion 5 . . . .”). 1 6 The district cour t did not abuse its discretion in its April 2009 order deny ing 7 Bur

ke’s motion for r econside ration of the Ma rch 2009 or der, be cause Bur ke fa iled to “point 8 to controlling de cisions or data that the court ove rlooked.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc. , 9 70 F .3 d 2 55 , 2 57 (2 d Ci r. 19 95 ); se e als o I n r e BD C 56

LLC , 330 F.3d 111, 123 ( 2d Cir. 10 20 03 ). No r d id t he dis tr ic t c ourt

a bu se its dis c re tio n in

de nyingB ur

ke le ave to f

ile a fo ur th 11 ame n d e d

c o mp la int, g iv e nth at t

h e p r o p o s e d

c o mp la int w a s “ me r e ly

[a ] r e c y c le d

v e r s io n []” 12 of the pre viously proposed a

mended c omplaints. Bellikoff v. Eaton VanceCorp. , 481 F.3d 13 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2007). More over, the district court prope rly denied B urke le ave to amend 14 beca

use ame ndment would have be en futile. Se e Fo ma n v . D av is , 371 U.S. 178, 182 15 (1 96 2) ; Burch v. P ioneer Credit Rec overy , Inc. , 551 F.3d 122, 126 ( 2d Cir. 2008). 165 1 On appe al, B urke pr imarily argues that the De fenda

nts-Appellee s brea ched one or 2 more c ontrac ts. Howeve r, havingfound no basis for subject matter jur isdiction, the district 3 court’s A

pril 2009 order

proper ly declined to e x erc ise supplemental jurisdiction over 4 Bur

ke’s state law cla ims. See28 U. S.C. § 1 36 7; Valencia e x rel. Franc o v. Lee , 316 F.3d 5 299, 304-05 (2d Cir. 2003). 6 W e h av e r ev i ew edBu rk e’ s re m ai n i n g ar gum en t s o nap p ea l , i n cl u d i n g h i s ch al l en ge 7 to t

he c on sti tut ion a lity

of mot ion s to dis mis s, and

c on c lud e that th e y

are wi tho ut m e ri t. 8 F o r

th e f o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , th e j u d g m e n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o urti s h e r e b y AF F IRMED. 9 FOR THE COURT: 10 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 11