### 1 15-629-cv McNaughton v. de Blasio



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
**FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



# SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER**

**FILED ON OR AFTER J**  **ANUARY 1,**  **2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY**  **F EDERAL**  **R ULE OF** 
**A PPELLATE**  **P ROCEDURE**  **32.1 AND THIS COURT**  = **S L**  **OCAL R**  **ULE 32.1.1.**  **W HEN CITING A SUMMARY** 

**ORDER IN**  **A DOCUMENT**  **FILED WITH**  **THIS COURT**  **, A**  **PARTY MUST**  **CITE EITHER**  **THE F**  **EDERAL A**  **PPENDIX**

**OR AN**  **ELECTRONIC DATABASE**  **( WITH**  **THE NOTATION**  A **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 1 

### the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 2 

### Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 3 

### 22 **nd** 

### day of March, two thousand sixteen. 4
5 

### PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 6 

### PETER W. HALL, 7 

### Circuit Judges 8 

### JANE A. RESTANI, **1** 9 

### CIT Judge. 10
11


### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 12 

### NEIL MCNAUGHTON, 13 

### Plaintiff-Appellant, 14
15 

### -v.- 15-629-cv 16
17 

### BILL DE BLASIO, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW 18 

### YORK, ET AL., 19 

### Defendants-Appellees. 20


### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 21
22


### FOR APPELLANT: Neil McNaughton, pro se, New York, 23


### NY. 24
25

1 Jane A Restani, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

### 2 **FOR APPELLEES:** Diana Lawless (Richard Paul 1 

### Dearing, on the brief), for 2 

### Zachary Carter, Corporation 3 

### Counsel of the City of New York, 4 

### New York, NY. 5
6 

### Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court 7 

### for the Southern District of New York (Failla, J.). 8
9 

### UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND 10


### DECREED that the judgment of the district court be **AFFIRMED**

. 11
12 

### Neil McNaughton, a lawyer appearing pro se, appeals from 13 

### the judgment of the United States District Court for the 14 

### Southern District of New York (Failla, J.) dismissing his claims 15 

### under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for failure to state a claim. 16 

### In a nutshell, McNaughton alleges that after his sister falsely 17 

### told two different police departments that he was a pedophile, 18 

### the police hacked his computer and slandered, stalked, baited, 19 

### and searched him. McNaughton alleges that this conduct 20 

### violated his rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth 21 

### Amendments. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 22 

### underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 23 

### presented for review. 24



### 1. We review the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo, 25 

### accept as true all factual allegations, and draw all reasonable 26 

### inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Fink v. Time Warner 27 

### Cable, 714 F.3d 739, 740-41 (2d Cir. 2013). To survive a Rule 28 

### 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the complaint must plead “enough 29 

### facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 30 

### Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) 31 

### (emphasis added). Although “a court is ordinarily obligated 32 

### to afford a special solicitude to pro se litigants,” such as 33 

### by liberally construing their pleadings, “a lawyer representing 34 

### himself ordinarily receives no such solicitude at all.” Tracy 35 

### v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101-02 (2d Cir. 2010). 36



### McNaughton’s allegations of a conspiracy spanning several 37 

### years and involving his sister, two separate police 38 

### departments, dozens of police officers, and numerous underage 39 

### children are implausible and conclusory. None of his 40

### 3 allegations against any of the defendants satisfy the pleading 1 

### standards of Twombly that McNaughton, as a lawyer, was required 2 

### to meet. Therefore, we affirm for substantially the reasons 3 

### stated in the district court’s opinion dismissing McNaughton’s 4 

### amended complaint. 5



### Moreover, the district court did not err in considering a 6 

### document outside the pleadings or in denying McNaughton leave 7 

### to amend. As to the former, McNaughton incorporated the 8 

### document by reference in his complaint. See DiFolco v. MSNBC 9 

### Cable LLC, 622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir. 2010). As to the latter, 10 

### McNaughton already amended his complaint once and the nature 11 

### of his implausible allegations confirms that amendment would 12 

### have been futile. See, e.g., Lucente v. Int’l Bus. Machs. 13 

### Corp., 310 F.3d 243, 258 (2d Cir. 2002). 14



### Accordingly, and finding no merit in McNaughton’s other 15 

### arguments, we hereby **AFFIRM** the judgment of the district court. 16



### FOR THE COURT: 17 

### CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 18