11-1921 Remy v. N.Y.S. Dep’t of Taxation 

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

# 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**  1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United** 2 **States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on** 3 **the 3 rd** **day of January, two thousand thirteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 7 Chief Judge, 8 **RALPH K. WINTER,** 9 **GUIDO CALABRESI,** 10 Circuit Judges. 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **Lesly Remy,** 14 15 Plaintiff-Appellant**,** 16 17 **v. 11-1921** 18 19 **New York State Department of** 20 **Taxation and Finance, New York** 21 **State Office of Temporary and** 22 **Disability Assistance, New York** 23 **State Office Children and Family** 24 **Services, New York City Office of** 25 **Child Support Enforcement, AKA SCU** 26 **a subdivision of NYC Human** 27 **Resources Administration, New York** 28 **City Employee Retirement Services,** 29 **Support Magistrates, New York State** 30 **Clerk of Court, New York City Fire** 31 **Dept EMS Paramedic John Doe number** 322 **1, a sub division, S. Michael** 1 **Fondocaro, Joette Blaustein, George** 2 **Cafasso, Ira Steinberg, Robert L.** 3 **Megna, David Hansell, Gladys** 4 **Carrion, Francis Pardu Abbadessa,** 5 **Diane D'Alessandro, Peter** 6 **Passidomo, Esq., John Aman, C.** 7 **Duncan Kerr, Jaynee Wall, L.** 8 **Bishop, Robert Doar, Sawatar Singh,** 9 **Phil Ramos, New York State Assembly** 10 **Member, Michele Titus, New York** 11 **State Assembly Member, Vivian Cook,** 12 **New York State Assembly Member,** 13 **Gloria D'Amico, David Patterson,** 14 **Governor, Michael Bloomberg, Mayor,** 15 **City of New York, State of New** 16 **York, Debra Barticheck, New York** 17 **State Court Officer, Maria Cooper,** 18 **Miles Mckenna, James Drakos, Joseph** 19 **Guzzardo, et al., Fred Beneri,** 20 21 Defendants-Appellees 22 23 **Commissioners, Directors, Chiefs,** 24 **Captain John Doe number 1,** 25 **New York State Court Officer, New** 26 **York State Court Officers John/Jane** 27 **Doe 1, 2, 3, 4,** 28 29 Defendants**.** 30

**_____________________________________** 31 32 **FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT:** Lesly Remy, pro se , Brentwood, NY. 33 34 **FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES:** Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation 35 Counsel for the City of New York, 36 Paul Rephen, Inga Van Eysden, of 37 Counsel, New York, NY, for the New 38 York City Defendants-Appellees

. 39 40 Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney 41 General of the State of New York; 42 Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor 43 General; Michael S. Belohlavek, 44 Senior Counsel; Patrick J. Walsh, 45 Assistant Solicitor General of 46 Counsel, New York, NY, for the New 47 York State Defendants-Appellees

. 483 1 Appeal from the September 29, 2010, and April 26, 2011, 2 orders of the United States District Court for the Eastern 3 District of New York (Feuerstein, J

. ). 4 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND** 5
**DECREED**that the judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**
. 6 Plaintiff-Appellant Lesly Remy, proceeding pro se , appeals 7 from the district court’s judgment partially granting the 8 defendants’s motions to dismiss various claims for lack of 9 jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. We assume the 10 parties’s familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural 11 history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 12 As a preliminary matter, although Remy raises challenges to 13 the district court’s November 2011 order granting summary 14 judgment, we lack jurisdiction to consider them because he did 15 not file a separate notice of appeal following entry of that 16 order. See Shrader v. CSX Transp. Inc. , 70 F.3d 255, 256 (2d 17 Cir. 1995) (where a notice of appeal “fail[s] to mention” a 18 specific order, we are “bar[red] from considering” an appellate 19 challenge to it). We limit our review to Remy’s appeal from the 20 district court’s September 2010 order dismissing the complaint 21 against all parties except the court officers, and April 2011 22 order denying his motion for reconsideration. 23
244 “A challenge under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine is for lack 1 of subject matter jurisdiction.” Moccio v. N.Y. State Office of 2 Court Admin. , 95 F.3d 195, 198 (2d Cir. 2002). In evaluating the 3 dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 4 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to 5 state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), we review a district court’s 6 factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de 7

novo , construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual 8 allegations therein as true, and drawing all reasonable 9 inferences in plaintiff’s favor. See Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. 10 Bank Ltd. , 547 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2008) (Rule 12(b)(1)); 11 Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc. , 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002) 12 (Rule 12(b)(6)). In adjudicating a motion to dismiss for lack of 13 subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), courts may 14 consider “evidence outside the pleadings.” Makarova v. United 15
States , 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). 16 Remy’s protestations about the district court’s application 17 of the Rooker-Feldmandoctrine are not persuasive. 18 “Rooker–Feldmandirects federal courts to abstain from 19 considering claims when four requirements are met: (1) the 20 plaintiff lost in state court, (2) the plaintiff complains of 21 injuries caused by the state court judgment, (3) the plaintiff 22 invites district court review of that judgment, and (4) the state 23 court judgment was entered before the plaintiff's federal suit 241For example, Remy argues that a state memorandum decision “denied [him] the equity of NYS Family Law [and] Domestic Relations Law in the area of [p]arental visitation.”
5 commenced.” McKithen v. Brown, 626 F.3d 143, 154 (2d Cir. 2010). 1 Here, contrary to Remy’s assertions, the record shows that he 2 lost repeatedly in state court. See, e.g. , Matter of Remy v. 3 Mitchell , 60 A.D.3d 860, rearg. denied and lv. denied, 2009 N.Y. 4 Slip Op. 73279 (2d Dep’t 2009) (dismissing Remy’s appeal from an 5 order of the Family Court, Queens County, which fixed his child 6 support arrears in the amount of $5,691.13). Remy is incorrect 7 that his losses were merely administrative or ministerial and 8 therefore outside the ambit of Rooker-Feldman. The Family 9 Court’s arrears order was an entirely sufficient judicial loss 10 because Remy had a full and fair opportunity to litigate that 11 issue. See Phifer v. City of New York, 289 F.3d 49, 57 (2d Cir. 12 1996) (“This court may not review the family court's 13 determinations regarding custody, neglect and visitation, as 14 those issues were decided by the family court after providing 15 [the plaintiff] a full and fair opportunity to litigate those 16 issues.”). 17 Remy’s federal complaint seeks direct review of prior state 18 court judgments. 1Thus, under Rooker-Feldman, this court does 19 not have subject matter jurisdiction to disturb his state court 20 judgments. The district court’s partial dismissal of his 21 complaint was therefore appropriate. 226 We have considered Remy’s remaining arguments on appeal and 1 have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment 2 of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED. 3
4 FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 6 7 8