08-3410-pr

Arriaga v. Department of Corrections
UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T SUM M AR

Y O RD ER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTI AL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GO V ERNED 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 te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 25 day

of Mar ch, two thousand ten. th PRES ENT: WI L FRED F EI NB ERG, ROBERT A. K

ATZ MANN, P E T E R W
. H A LL, Circ uit J ud ge s.

___________________________________________ An th o n y Arri aga , Plain tif f- Ap pe lla nt,
-v.- 08-3410-pr De pa rtme nt o f C or

re c tio ns , Ward e n o f A .M .D .C. , Ci ty of Ne w York, Defendants-A ppellees
.

___________________________________________ FOR APPEL LANT: Anthony Arria g a, pro s e , Wallkil l, N.Y. FOR APPEL L EES: Michae l A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel for the City of Ne w Yo rk , Sh ary

n M ic he le Roo te nb e rg , A ssi sta nt C or po ra tio n Co un se l, New Y ork, N.Y. Appea l from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York ( Castel, J .). UP ON DU E C ON SID ER AT ION , i ti s h e r e b y OR

DE RE D , AD JU DG ED , AND DECREED that th e dis tr ic t c ourt jud g me nt i s AF F IRM ED
.2

Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony Arria g a, pro s e , appea ls from the May 27, 2008 judgme nt of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York ( Castel, J. ) g ranting
s umm a r y ju d g me n t t o th e d e f

e n d an ts an d

d is mi s s in gA r

r ia g a ’ s 4 2 U
. S. C. § 1 9 8 3 c la im s . We assume the pa

rties’ fa miliarity with the underly

ing f acts a nd the proc edura l history

of the c ase. Th is C ourt

re vie ws an o rd e r gra

nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt de novo and foc uses on whethe r the district court prope rly conclude d that there wer e no g enuine issues a s to any materia l fac t and that the moving pa

rty was e ntitled to judgment as a matter of la

w. Se e Mi lle r v . W

olp off & Abramson, L.L.P. , 321 F.3d 292, 300 ( 2d Cir. 2003). In deter mining whe ther ther e ar e g enuine iss ue s o f m ate ri a l f

a c t, t his Court is “ re qu ir e d to re so lve a ll ambi guit ie s a nd dr aw a ll p e rm iss ibl e fac tual infere nces in fa

vor of the pa

rty ag ainst whom summary

judgme nt is sought.” Terry v. As hc ro ft , 336 F.3d 128, 137 ( 2d Cir. 2003) (interna l quotations omi tted). Discove ry ruling s and the denial of

a motion for lea

ve to amend the complaint are revie wed f or abuse of discre tion. See In re Age nt Orange Prod. Liab. Li tig. , 5 17 F .3 d 7 6, 10 2 ( 2d Cir . 2 00 8) (d isc ov e ry

); Y erdon v. He nr y , 91 F.3d 370, 378 ( 2d Cir. 1996) (ame ndment). Af t er h av i n g re v i ew edArri aga ’s co n t en t i o n s o nap p ea l an d th e r ec o rdo f p ro ce ed i n gs b el o w, we af

fi rm fo r s u

b s t an t i al l y

th e s am e r ea s o n s s t at edb y th e d i s tri ctco urti ni t s th o ro u gh op ini on . A dd iti on a lly , w e no te that A rr ia g a ’s c onte nti on that he wa s a ssa

ult e d d ue to h is s e c ur ity risk g roup status is belied by his deposition testi mony , in which he state d that he did not know why the other inmate assaulted him or if the othe r inmate wa s a member of a g ang . Moreove r, Arria g a pre sented no e vidence in support of his claims. Se e D’ Am ic o v . Ci ty

of N e w York, 132 F.3d 145, 149 ( 2d Cir. 1998) (in orde r to defe at summary judgme nt the “non-movingparty may not rely on mere conclusory

alleg ations nor spec ulation, but inst ead must off er some ha

rd3

evidenc e showingthat its version of the eve nts is not wholl y fanc iful”). We have c onsidered a ll of Arria g a’s a rguments and find them to be without merit. Ac c or din g ly , th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
. F OR TH E CO UR T: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk