12-3316-cv

Arrocha v. City University of New York

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 TO A SUMMARY

ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

1 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 1st 2

3 day of July, two thousand thirteen.

4

5 PRESENT:

6 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,

7 GERARD E. LYNCH,

8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

9 Circuit Judges. 

10 _____________________________________

11

12 JOSE LUIS ARROCHA,

13

14 Plaintiff-Appellant,

15

16 v. 12-3316-cv

17

18 CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,

19

20

21 Defendants-Appellees.

22 _____________________________________

23

24 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Jose Luis Arrocha, pro se, Brooklyn, NY.

25

26 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Matthew W. Grieco, Assistant Solicitor General of

27 Counsel, Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General

28 of the State of New York, Barbara D. Underwood,

29 Solicitor General, Michael S. Belohlavek, Senior

30 Counsel, Albany, NY.

31
1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New

2 York (Vitaliano, J.).

3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

4 DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

5 Plaintiff-Appellant Jose Luis Arrocha, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s

6 judgment granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss his civilrights and employment discrimination

7 action pursuant to FederalRule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6). We assume the parties’ familiarity with

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

9 We review a district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of a complaint de novo. See Famous

10 Horse Inc. v. 5th Ave. Photo Inc., 624 F.3d 106, 108 (2d Cir. 2010). The complaint must plead

11 “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

12 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true,

13 this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A

14 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw

15 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. We remain

16 obligated, however, to construe pro se complaints liberally. See Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 71-72

17 (2d Cir. 2009). Thus, while pro se complaints must contain sufficient factual allegations to meet the

18 plausibility standard, id., we should look for such allegations by reading pro se complaints with

19 “special solicitude” and interpreting them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest.” 

20 Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (emphasis

21 omitted). 

22

2
1 Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly granted the defendants’ motion to

2 dismiss on the ground that the claims were implausible. We need not reach Arrocha’s argument that

3 his 2009 Title VII claims that the district court dismissed as time-barred were properly brought

4 because the district court should have treated his EEOC intake form as an EEOC charge (an

5 argument that, in any event, was not presented to the district court). Arrocha’s 2009 Title VII claims

6 rely on the same legal predicates and factual allegations as his 2009 § 1983 claims. Because we

7 conclude that the district court correctly dismissed the latter claims for failing to state a claim, his

8 Title VII claims were also properly dismissed, even assuming they were timely when filed.

9 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

10 FOR THE COURT:

11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

3