1 16-3097-cv Shapiro v. Goldman UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECO ND 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 DA TABASE (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 Cour t of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courth ouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 24 th day of August, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, REENA RAGGI, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges

.

---------------------------- ---------------------------- --------------- MARK SHAPIRO, Plaintiff-Appellant , v. No. 16-3097-cv DANIEL SACHS GOLDMAN, NICHOLAS L. MCQUAID, PREET BHARAR A, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CRIME BUREAU, ANTHONY TARDALO, JANICE K. FEDARCYK, DONALD G. ANSPACHER, SUSAN Q. HOOD, ROBERT BRODY, DOUGLAS S. MENGES, NANCY PIERCE, MICHAEL SEIFER, JOHN AND JANE DOE DOJ POLICY MA KERS #1–5 (name(s) who are not fully known at present, and possibly other unidentified members of the Department of Justice), FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION SPECIAL AGENTS AND ASSISTAN T DIRECTORS, #1–10 (name(s) and identification numbers that are not fully known at present, and pos sibly other unidentified members of the Department of Justice),2 Defendants-Appellees , OFFICE OF THE UNITE D STATES ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGAT ION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, RIVKIN RADLER LLP, BARRY I. LEVY, MICHAEL A. SIRIGNANO, DALLAS REGAN, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO GENERAL INSURANC E COMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CO MPANY, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE IN SURANCE COMPANY, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, FARMERS INSURANCE CO MPANY, PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO MPANY, NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, METLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, METROPOLITAN REINSURANCE COMP ANY, METROPOLITAN CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, METROPOLITAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY IN SURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, REPWEST INSURANCE CO MPANY, 21ST CENTURY INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICE, 21ST CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, AIG ADVANTAGE INSURANCE COMPANY, TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHAN GE, FARMERS NEW CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants

.

---------------------------- ---------------------------- --------------- APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: RAYMOND J. ZUPPA, JR. (Jonathan M. Davidoff, Davidoff Law Firm, PLLC, New York, New York, on the brief ), The Zuppa Firm PLLC, Garden C ity, New York.3 APPEARING FOR GOVERNMENT ANDREW E. KRAUSE, Assistant United APPELLEES: States Attorney (Christopher Connolly, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief ), for Joon H. Kim, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, New York.

APPEARING FOR PRIVATE MICHAEL R. NELSON (Kymberly Kochis, on APPELLEES: the brief ), Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, New York, New York, for Nancy Pierce. BARRY JACOBS, Abrams, Gorelick, Friedman & Jacobson, LLP, New York, New York, for The National Insurance Crime Bureau, Anthony Tardalo, Susan Q. Hood, Robert Brody, and Douglas S. Menges. Appeal from a judgment of the United St ates District Court for the Southern

District of New York (Naomi Reice Buchwald, Judge ). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERE D, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on August 17, 2016, is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff Mark Shapiro a ppeals from the dismissal of his complaint alleging

various constitutional and to rt claims pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (197 1), and the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671–2680, against federal prosecutors and Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) agents (“Government Defendants”), as well as the National Insurance Crime Bureau (“NICB”) and several of its employees and board members (together with the NI CB, “Private Defendants”) for their role in securing his

indictment incident to a wide-ra nging insurance-fra ud investigation.4 At oral argument on Augu st 17, 2017, Shapiro withdrew all but three of his Bivens

claims. Shapiro v. Goldman , No. 16-3097, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Aug. 17, 2017), http://www.ca2.usc ourts.gov/oral_arguments.html. Those remaining are for: (1) malicious prosecution , (2) inducement of false testimony, and (3) defamatory statements made by the government , known as a “stigma plus” claim. Also remaining on appeal are Shapir o’s FTCA claims. We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)( 6), accepting all factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in Shapiro’s favor. See Biro v. Condé Nast , 807 F.3d 541, 544 (2d Cir. 2015). In so doing, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of prior pro ceedings and issues on appeal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)–(2) requires a complaint to contain a “short and plain statement” setting forth grounds for the court’ s jurisdiction and showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Despite three opportun ities to plead, Shapiro repeatedly violated this standard, filing a prolix 115-page Se cond Amended Complaint. That, by itself,

warrants affirmance of the dist rict court’s dismissal. See Salahuddin v. Cuomo , 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988) (“ When a complaint does not co mply with the requirement that it be short and plain, the court has the power, on its own initiative or in response to a motion by the defendant, . . . to dismiss the complaint.”). In any event, upon independent review of the record, and for th e reasons stated in the thorough opinion of the district court, see Shapiro v. Goldman , No. 14 Civ. 10119 (NRB), 2016 WL 4371741 (S.D.N .Y. Aug. 15, 2016), we conc lude that dismissal was warranted for failure to plead facts that plausibly support his claims. See Ashcroft v.5 Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“To survive a motion to dismiss, a co mplaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); TechnoMarine SA v. Giftports,

Inc. , 758 F.3d 493, 505 (2d Cir. 2 014) (affirming district cour t’s dismissal of complaint for failure to plausibly plead claims). Insofar as the Private Defendants request that we issue an order to show cause as to why Sh apiro or his counsel s hould not be sanctioned for bringing a frivolous appeal, that application is denied. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court