1 

16-3097-cv 

Shapiro v. Goldman 

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 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 Circuit, held 

at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New 

York, on the 24th 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 BHARARA, 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 MAKERS #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 ASSISTANT DIRECTORS, #1–10 

(name(s) and identification numbers that are not fully 

known at present, and possibly other unidentified 

members of the Department of Justice), 
2 

Defendants-Appellees,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 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 INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO 

INDEMNITY COMPANY, STATE FARM FIRE AND 

CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE FARM 

MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, TRAVELERS 

HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE 

CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONWIDE 

MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, METLIFE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, METROPOLITAN 

REINSURANCE COMPANY, METROPOLITAN 

CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY, METROPOLITAN 

GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE PROPERTY 

AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

REPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, 21ST CENTURY 

INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICE, 21ST 

CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, AIG 

ADVANTAGE INSURANCE COMPANY, TRUCK 

INSURANCE EXCHANGE, 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 City, 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 States District Court for the Southern 

District of New York (Naomi Reice Buchwald, Judge). 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 

AND DECREED that the judgment entered on August 17, 2016, is AFFIRMED. 

Plaintiff Mark Shapiro appeals from the dismissal of his complaint alleging 

various constitutional and tort claims pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents 

of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), 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 NICB, “Private Defendants”) for their role in securing his 

indictment incident to a wide-ranging insurance-fraud investigation. 
4 

At oral argument on August 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.uscourts.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 Shapiro’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 proceedings 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 opportunities to plead, Shapiro repeatedly violated 

this standard, filing a prolix 115-page Second Amended Complaint. That, by itself, 

warrants affirmance of the district court’s dismissal. See Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 

F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988) (“When a complaint does not comply 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 the 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 conclude 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 complaint 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. 2014) (affirming district court’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 Shapiro or his counsel should 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