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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 1 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Fole y Square, in the City of New York, on the 1 st 2 day of July, two thousand thirteen. 3 4 PRESENT: 5 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 6 GERARD E. LYNCH, 7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 8 Circuit Judges

. 9

_____________________________________ 10 11 JOSE LUIS ARROCHA, 12 13 Plaintiff-Appellant , 14 15 v. 12-3316-cv 16 17 CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, et al. , 18 19 20 Defendants-Appellees

. 21

_____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Jose Luis Arrocha, pro se , Brooklyn, NY. 24 25 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Matthew W. Grieco, Assistant Solicitor General of 26 Counsel, Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General 27 of the State of New York, Barbara D. Underwood, 28 Solicitor General, Michael S. Belohlavek, Senior 29 Counsel, Albany, NY. 30 31Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New 1 York (Vitaliano, J .). 2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 3 DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. 4
Plaintiff- Appellant Jose Luis Arrocha, proceeding pro se , appeals from the district court’s 5 judgment granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss his civil rights and employment discrimination 6 action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 7 the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 8 We review a district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of a complaint de novo

. See Famous 9 Horse Inc. v. 5th Ave. Photo Inc. , 624 F.3d 106, 108 (2d Cir. 2010). The complaint must plead 10 “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 11 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Although all allegations containe d in the complaint are assumed to be true, 12 this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A 13 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pl eads factual content that allows the court to draw 14 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. We remain 15 obligated, however, to construe pro se complaints liberally. S ee Harris v. Mills , 572 F.3d 66, 71-72 16 (2d Cir. 2009). Thus, while pro se complaints must contain sufficient factual allegations to meet the 17 plausibility standard, id. , we should look for such allegations by reading pro se complaints with 18 “special solicitude” and interpreting them to rais e the “strongest [claims] that they suggest.” 19 Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons , 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (emphasis 20 omitted). 21
22



### 2Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly granted the defendants’ motion to 1 dismiss on the ground that the claims were implausi ble. We need not reach Arrocha’s argument that 2 his 2009 Title VII claims that the district cour t dismissed as time-barred were properly brought 3 because the district court should have treated his EEOC intake form as an EEOC charge (an 4 argument that, in any event, was not presented to the district court). Arrocha’s 2009 Title VII claims 5 rely on the same legal predicates and factual allegations as his 2009 § 1983 claims. Because we 6 conclude that the district court correctly dismisse d the latter claims for failing to state a claim, his 7 Title VII claims were also properly dismissed, even assuming they were timely when filed. 8 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED

. 9
FOR THE COURT: 10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 11



### 3