23-441-cv

Jean-Baptiste v. United States Department of Justice

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 20th day of March, two thousand 

twenty-four. 

PRESENT: 

JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

RICHARD C. WESLEY,

ALISON J. NATHAN,

Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________

Harold Jean-Baptiste, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 23-441

United States Department of Justice, Merrick B. 

Garland, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

Christopher Wray, Director of the Federal Bureau 

of Investigations, in his official capacity, City of 
2 

New York, Mayor Eric L. Adams, in his official 

capacity, Police Commissioner Keechant Sewell, 

in his official capacity, Corporation Counsel of 

the City of New York, Office of the Attorney 

General of the State of New York, Damian 

Williams, United States Attorney, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_____________________________________

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Harold Jean-Baptiste, pro se, 

Rosedale, NY. 

FOR CITY DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Melanie T. West, Lauren L. 

O’Brien, for Hon. Sylvia O. 

Hinds-Radix, Corporation 

Counsel of the City of New 

York, New York, NY. 

FOR FEDERAL DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Brandon H. Cowart, 

Christopher Connolly, for

Damian Williams, United 

States Attorney 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 (Broderick, J.).
3

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED. 

In the district court, pro se litigant Harold Jean-Baptiste alleged that the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conspired with a private car-transportation 

company to frame him for violating New York’s vehicle registration law. He also 

claimed that the FBI instructed the New York Police Department to deny his 

application for a gun license, violating his Second Amendment rights. The 

district court dismissed his claims against all defendants for failure to properly 

serve, dismissed his Second Amendment claim for lack of standing, and concluded 

that his claims were without merit in any event. Jean-Baptiste timely appealed. 

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining facts, the procedural 

history, and the issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain 

our decision to affirm. 

As an initial matter, Jean-Baptiste’s appellate brief does not address the 

dismissal of his Second Amendment claim. While pro se briefs are liberally 

construed, see McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017), 
4

they still must provide “a clear statement of the issues on appeal,” Moates v. 

Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 209 (2d Cir. 1998). Jean-Baptiste’s brief fails to do so, and 

we therefore consider his Second Amendment claim abandoned. See Gerstenbluth 

v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 728 F.3d 139, 142 n.4 (2d Cir. 2013). 

Moreover, in his brief, Jean-Baptiste argues only that the defendants waived 

proper service by appearing in the suit, which he alleges showed that they 

received the summons and complaint. But as the district court explained, actual 

notice does not cure improper service. See Martin v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Mental 

Hygiene, 588 F.2d 371, 373 (2d Cir. 1978) (“A showing that the defendant has had 

actual notice of the lawsuit is not sufficient to bar a motion to dismiss[.]”); see also

United States v. Thompson, 921 F.3d 82, 87 (2d Cir. 2019) (same, under New York 

law). Similarly, while Jean-Baptiste contends that he served the government 

entities by mail, the district court observed that he did not do so in compliance 

with N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 312-a(a), a finding he does not challenge. Because he raises 

no other challenge to the improper service issue in his appellate brief, we may 

affirm on that basis alone. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F. 3d 88, 92–93 (2d 

Cir. 1995). 
5

In any case, we may also affirm on the basis that Jean-Baptiste’s non-SecondAmendment claims are without merit. We review a dismissal for failure to state 

a claim de novo, “accepting as true all of the complaint’s well-pleaded facts.” 

Washington v. Barr, 925 F.3d 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2019). Here, Jean-Baptiste did not 

plead sufficient facts to state a valid Fourth Amendment claim premised on the 

alleged monitoring of his laptop. He also did not plead non-conclusory facts 

suggesting that any conduct was motivated by unlawful discrimination or 

unconstitutional conduct, and neither the federal statutes he cited, nor the Ninth 

Amendment, provides an independent source of substantive rights. See United

Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., Loc. 610, AFL-CIO v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 833 (1983) 

(addressing § 1985(3)); Phillips v. City of New York, 775 F.3d 538, 544 (2d Cir. 2015)

(Ninth Amendment); Thomas v. Roach, 165 F.3d 137, 142 (2d Cir. 1999) (§ 1983). 

Jean-Baptiste also relied on various federal criminal statutes, but none are 

enforceable by a private citizen. See Schlosser v. Kwak, 16 F.4th 1078, 1083 (2d Cir. 

2021); see also Robinson v. Overseas Mil. Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 511 (2d Cir. 1994). 

Finally, Jean-Baptiste has not shown that the district court was biased 

against him or denied him access to the courts by dismissing his claims. An 
6

unfavorable ruling by itself is not grounds for a claim of bias, and nothing 

indicates that Jean-Baptiste’s access to the courts was obstructed or impeded in 

any way. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). 

We have considered Jean-Baptiste’s remaining arguments and find them to 

be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court