12

- 1963

- cv

Barani v. Dep’t of Defense

, et al.

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 th e Federal Appendix 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 for the Second Circui t, held at the

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square , in the City of New York, on the 7 th

day of May , two thousand thirteen

.

PRESENT:

J OSÉ A. C ABRANES

,

R ICHARD C. W ESLEY

, J. C LIFFORD W

ALLACE

, 1

Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________

D ANIEL B ARANI

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v. No. 12

- 1963

- cv

D EPARTMENT OF D EFENSE

, U NITED S TATES D EPARTMENT

OF H OMELAND S ECURITY

, C ENTRAL I NTELLIGENCE A GENCY

, F EDERAL B UREAU OF I NVESTIGATION

,

Defendants

- Appellees

.

_____________________________________

1 The Honorable J

. Clifford Wallace

, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.2

FOR PLAINTIFF

- APPELLANT: Daniel Barani, pro se , New York, NY

.

FOR DEFENDANTS

- APPELLEES: Sarah Sheive Normand, Leslie A.

Ramirez

- Fisher, for Preet Bharara,

United States Attorney, United States

Attorney’s Office for the Southern

District of New York, New York, NY

.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of

New York (

J. Paul Oetken, Judge

).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the District Court’s April 27, 2012 judgment is AFFIRMED

.

Plaintiff

- a ppellant Daniel Barani, proceeding pro se , appeals from the District C ourt’s

dismissal of his complaint with prejudice

, which alleged various violations of the United States

Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

, and other federal statutes. We assume the parties’ familiarity with

the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo a district court ’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) or

12(b)(6). See Jaghory v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Educ. , 131 F.3d 326, 329 (2d Cir. 1997). Dismissing a case

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is proper “when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional

power to adjudicate it.” Makarova v. United States , 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). To survive a

Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on it s face.” Bell Atl

. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has “facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” As hcroft v. Iqbal

, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009 ).

We have reviewed all of Barani’s arguments on appeal and hold each of them to be without

merit. Substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s April 26, 2012 Memorandum and

Order, we conclude that Barani’s claims were properly dismissed

.

We also conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion

, see Williams v. Citigroup,

Inc.

, 659 F.3d 208, 212 (2d Cir. 2011), by implicitly denying Barani’s request for leave to amend his

complaint, see Fielding v. Tollaksen , 510 F.3d 175, 179 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that “ when a district

judge enters an order disposing of a case without expressly ruling on a pending objection

. . . the

judgment entered pursuant to that order functions as a final order overruling the objection ”).

Although district courts generally should no t dismiss a pro se complaint without granting the plaintiff3

leave to amend, granting leave to amend is not necessary when amending the complaint would be

futile

. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu , 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). Here, allowing Barani to amend his

complaint would be futile as the barriers to relief for his claims cannot be surmounted by reframing

the complaint.

Accordingly, the April 27, 2012 judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk