Court Opinion

ID: 9899681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-17 16:00:42.422856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:46.276118
License: Public Domain

22-2851
     Schvimmer v. Randall

                               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,
 2   held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
 3   New York, on the 17th day of November, two thousand twenty-three.
 4
 5   PRESENT:
 6               JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
 7               ROBERT D. SACK
 8               MYRNA PÉREZ,
 9                     Circuit Judges.
10   _____________________________________
11
12   Israel Schvimmer, Miriam Schvimmer,
13
14                          Plaintiffs-Appellants,
15
16
17                 v.                                                      22-2851
18
19   New York City Police Detective Buckner, of the
20   79th Precinct, David A. Hansell, (Reg. #1950179)
21   individually and as NYC Commissioner of the
22   Administration for Children’s Services, Rebecca
23   Elizabeth Szewczuk, (Reg. #4686903)
24   individually and as Attorney for NYC ACS-
25   Kings County (Family Court) and Attorney for
26   Corporation Counsel of the City of New York,
27   Ian Sangenito, (Reg. #3035235) individually and
28   as Attorney for NYC ACS (Brooklyn Office)
29   Kings County Family Court, John Anthony
 1   Morgano, (Reg. #4558565) individually and as
 2   Attorney for NYC ACS, and as Attorney for
 3   Corporation Counsel of the City of New York,
 4   Kathy Ann Best, individually and as Caseworker
 5   for NYC-ACS, Carmalita Cyrus, individually
 6   and as Supervisor #1 for NYC-ACS, Karen
 7   McNeely, individually and as Caseworker for
 8   NYC-ACS, Airat Bakara Adejobi, individually
 9   and as a Supervisor for NYC-ACS, Cecily
10   Francis, individually and as NYC-ACS
11   Supervisor, Beverly Drayton, individually and as
12   Caseworker for NYC-ACS, Peter Hill, LCSW
13   (LIC #028238) individually and as Caseworker
14   for NYC-ACS, Syndia Semexant, individually
15   and as Caseworker for NYC-ACS, Wanda
16   Fraser, Christine, individually and as
17   Caseworker for NYC-ACS, AKA Lottie
18   Henderson, Nicholas P. Smith, LCSW (LIC #)
19   individually and as Caseworker for NYC-ACS,
20   Harvey S. Jacobs, Sally Simone Markowitz,
21   (Reg. #3986031) individually, private Attorney
22   Court appointed, Rabbi Azriel Juda Katz,
23   Liaison for New York City Administration for
24   Children’s Services, Billa Tessler Bendet, LCSW
25   (LIC #045031) individually and as Court
26   appointed Therapist, Roderick Randall, City of
27   New York, Joyce Hopkins, John Coakley,
28   Deputy Clerk, Kings County Family Court,
29
30                       Defendants-Appellees,
31
32   The Office of Court Administration, New York
33   State Office of Children and Family Services,
34   Corporation Counsel of the City of New York,
35   Jeanette Vega-Alvarez, (LIC #041405)
36   individually and as NYC-ACS Supervisor FSU,
37   Jonathen Caceras, individually and as
38   Caseworker for NYC-ACS, Lorek Grazna,
39   individually and as Caseworker for NYC-ACS,
40   Chigewe Chisaramokwu, individually and as
41   Caseworker for NYC-ACS, Sharon St. Hill,
42   individually and as Caseworker for NYC-ACS,

                                                 2
 1   Emmanuelle Flax, individually and as
 2   Caseworker for NYC-ACS,
 3
 4                     Defendants.
 5   _____________________________________
 6

 7

 8   FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS:                  MIRIAM SCHVIMMER (Israel
 9                                               Schvimmer, on the brief), pro
10                                               se, Brooklyn, NY.
11
12   FOR MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES:         HANNAH J. SAROKIN
13                                               (Rebecca L. Visgaitis,
14                                               Jonathan Schoepp-Wong, on
15                                               the brief), Of Counsel, for
16                                               Hon. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix,
17                                               Corporation Counsel of the
18                                               City of New York, New
19                                               York, NY.
20
21   FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES HILL AND SMITH:    BRANDON BERKOWSKI
22                                               (Eileen Becker, on the brief),
23                                               Fullerton Beck LLP, North
24                                               Haven, CT.
25
26   FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES                    DAVID LAWERENCE III,
27   RANDALL, HOPKINS, AND COAKLEY:              Assistant Solicitor General
28                                               (Barbara D. Underwood,
29                                               Solicitor General, Ester
30                                               Murdukhayeva, Deputy
31                                               Solicitor General, on the
32                                               brief), for Letitia James,
33                                               Attorney General, State of
34                                               New York, New York, NY.
35
36   FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE BENDET:              David S. Rutherford,
37                                               Rutherford & Christie, LLP,
38                                               New York, NY
39
40   FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE JACOBS:              Harvey S. Jacobs, pro se,
41                                               New York, NY.
                                             3
 1
 2   FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE KATZ:                                                     Azriel Juda Katz, pro se,
 3                                                                                    Brooklyn, NY.
 4
 5   FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE MARKOWITZ:                                                Sally Simone Markowitz, pro
 6                                                                                    se, Highlands Ranch, CO.
 7

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

 9   York (Pamela K. Chen, Judge).

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

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

12              Plaintiffs-Appellants Israel and Miriam Schvimmer (“the Schvimmers”) appeal—pursuant

13   to 28 U.S.C. § 1291—the district court’s judgment, entered on September 30, 2022, granting

14   Defendants-Appellees’ respective motions to dismiss. We assume the parties’ familiarity with

15   the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary

16   to explain our decision to affirm.

17              On June 21, 2021, the Schvimmers filed their Second Amended Complaint, alleging ten

18   claims—nine federal claims and one claim under New York state law—against over twenty

19   defendants. On September 29, 2022, the district court granted Defendants-Appellees’ respective

20   motions to dismiss and dismissed with prejudice all of the Schvimmers’ claims against

21   Defendants-Appellees. 1 “We review the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo, accepting all

22   factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the

23   plaintiff.” Olson v. Major League Baseball, 29 F.4th 59, 71 (2d Cir. 2022) (citation omitted).

     1
         The district court dismissed some of the Schvimmers’ claims against certain Defendants-Appellees sua sponte.
                                                               4
 1   “In conducting our review, we construe complaints filed by pro se litigants liberally and interpret

 2   them to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Hunter v. McMahon, 75 F.4th 62, 67

 3   (2d Cir. 2023) (brackets, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).

 4          With those principles in mind, and after an independent review, we affirm the district

 5   court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its careful and

6    well-reasoned memorandum and order. See generally Schvimmer v. Randall, 18-CV-7419 (PKC)

 7   (JRC), 2022 WL 4586086 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2022). In sum, the Schvimmers’ Second Amended

8    Complaint fails to state any plausible claims upon which relief may be granted against Defendants-

 9   Appellees. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

10                                            *       *      *

11          Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

12
13                                                FOR THE COURT:
14                                                Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

                                                      5