J udge R os emar y S. Pool er , or i gi nal l y as s i gned t o thi s panel , di d notpart i ci pat e i n t he * c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. T h e re m a in in g tw o m e m b e rs o f th e p a n e l, w h o a re in agr eemen t, h av e d eterm ined this m att er in a cc o rda n ce w ith S ec o n d C ir cu itInternal O per at i ng P roc ed u re E (b). 08 -57 06 -cv Boylev . T ow

n of H am mond UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T AT I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R F I L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1, 20 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L RU LE O F A PPELLA TE P R O C EDU R E 32. 1 A N D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L R U LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T , A PAR TY M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L APP E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S E RVE A COPY OF I T ON ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. A ta s t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed St at es C our t of A ppeal s for the Second C i r cui t , hel d at the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed S t at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i tyof N ew Y or k, on the 29 dayof A pr i l , tw o thous and t en. th P R E S E N T : R E E N A R A G G I,

PETE R W
. HA LL, C i r cui tJudges
. *

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - J A M E S F . B O Y L E ,

P lai nt i f f

-Appel lant , v. N o. 08- 5706- cv TOW N O F HA M M ON D, NEW YO RK STATE DE P AR T M E NT OF T RA NS P OR T AT I ON,

D ef endant s -Appel l ee s.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - A PPE A R I N G FO R A PPE L L A N T : JA M E S F
. B O Y L E , pro se , H am m o n d, N ew Y or k. SU B M I T T I N G FO R A PPE L L E E S: F red erick E
. P ad d o ck , G o u v erne ur , N ew Y or k, f or Tow n of

H am m ond
.2 A ndr ew M
. C uom o, A t t orney G ener al for t he S tate o f N e w Y o r k , A n d re a O se r, D e p u ty S o lic ito r G e n e ra l, A lb a n y , N e w Y o rk , f or N ew Y o rk S ta te . A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r th e N o rth ern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (T h o m a s J . M c A v o y , Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND D E C R E E D thatthe j udgm entent er ed on O ct ober24, 2008, i s AF F I RMED
. P ro se p lain tiff

Ja m e s F
. B o y le a p p e a ls th e d istric t co u rt’s s u a sp o n te d ism iss a l o f h is compl ai ntal l egi ng a qui t am cl ai m underthe Fal s e C l ai m s A ct , 31 U
. S. C
. § 3729 ets eq. , and an i nvol unt ary s ervi tude cl ai m under the T hi r t eenth A m endment
. I n addi t i on, B oy l e moves for this cou rtt o aw ard hi m “j ustcom pen sat i on ” on these cl ai m s. W e assum e t he p arties’ fami l i ar i tyw i th the under l y i ng fac t s , the pr ocedur al hi s t oryof the ca s e, an d the iss ues on
a p p e a l.W e r evi ew de novo a d istr i ctcourt ’ s s ua s pont e di s m i s s al of a c om pl ai ntunder28 U
. S. C
. § 1915( e) ( 2)
. See G iano v . G o o rd, 25 0 F
. 3 d 1 4 6 , 1 4 9 -5 0 (2 d C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ). “N otw i thst and i ng anyfi l i ng fee .
. . that m ay hav e been paid, ” a dis tri ctcou rt“shal l dis m i ss [a] cas e atan y ti m e if the courtdet erm i nes that
. . . the ac t i on orappea l
. . . i s fr i vol ous or
ma l i c i ou s . . . [ o r ] f

a i l s t o s t a t e a c l a i m o n wh i c h r e l i e f ma yb e g r a n t e d
. ” 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) , ( i i ) ; s ee G i ano v. G oo rd, 25 0 F
. 3d at 14 9; s ee al so A bbas v. D i xon, 480 F. 3d 636, 639 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( obs ervi ng that § 1915( e) ( 2) pr ovi des “an e ffi ci entm eans by3

w hi ch a c our tcan s cr een f orand di s m i s s l egal l yi ns uffi ci entcl ai m s ”)
. A n act i on i s fr i vol ous i f i tl acks an arguab l e basi s i n law or fact– i. e. , i f i ti s “based o n an i nd i sputabl ym eri t l ess l egal theory ” orpr es ent s “fa ctual cont ent i ons [that ] are cl ear l ybas el es s . ” N ei t zke v. W illia m s , 4 9 0 U .S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 , 3 2 7 (1 9 8 9 ). U pon i n d ep en d entr evi ew of the r ecor d, w e conc l ude fors ubs t ant i al l ythe r eas ons sta ted b yth e d istric t c o u rt in its w e ll-re a so n e d o p in io n th a t p lain tiff ’s c laim s la c k a n a rg u a b le bas i s i n l aw orfac t . A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude t h at the di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed p lain tiff ’s c o m p lain t. F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , th e j u d g me n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s h e r e b yAF F I RMED
. B ec au se w e c o n clud e tha t th e d istri ct co u rtp ro p e rl yd ism issed the c o m p lai n t, p lai n ti ff ’s
mo t i o n f o r“ j u s tc o mp e n s a t i o n ” b a s e d o n th e c l a i ms r a i s e d th e r e i n i s h e r e b yDE NI E D.
FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’ H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt