Court Opinion

ID: 9384583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-04 14:00:26.734492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:54.510674
License: Public Domain

22-2822-cv
     Herschaft v. New York City Campaign Finance Board

                               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 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
 3   City of New York, on the 4th day of April, two thousand twenty-three.
 4
 5          PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK,
 6                           RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
 7                           SUSAN L. CARNEY,
 8                                   Circuit Judges.
 9          ------------------------------------------------------------------
10          ALLEN S. HERSCHAFT,
11
12                          Plaintiff-Appellant,
13
14                    v.                                                         No. 22-2822-cv
15
16          NEW YORK CITY CAMPAIGN FINANCE
17          BOARD,
18
19                          Defendant-Appellee.
20
21          ------------------------------------------------------------------
22          FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT:                                           ALLEN S. HERSCHAFT,
23                                                                             pro se, Brooklyn, NY

                                                         1
 1
 2         FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE:                            No appearance
 3
 4         Appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the

 5   Eastern District of New York (Kiyo A. Matsumoto, Judge).

 6         UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

 7   AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

 8         Allen S. Herschaft, proceeding pro se, appeals from a September 29, 2022

 9   judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York

10   (Matsumoto, J.) dismissing his First and Fourteenth Amendment freedom of

11   association, freedom of speech, and free exercise claims against the New York

12   City Campaign Finance Board as barred by res judicata, and denying leave to

13   amend his complaint. Herschaft principally claims that the Board’s reporting

14   requirements conflict with his Orthodox Jewish beliefs and those of his potential

15   campaign contributors. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying

16   facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to

17   explain our decision to affirm.

18         We begin with the District Court’s dismissal of Herschaft’s claims, which

19   we review de novo. See Hardaway v. Hartford Pub. Works Dep’t, 879 F.3d 486,

20   489 (2d Cir. 2018). Although we “construe a pro se complaint liberally to raise

                                             2
 1   the strongest arguments it suggests,” it must nevertheless “state a plausible claim

 2   for relief.” Darby v. Greenman, 14 F.4th 124, 127–28 (2d Cir. 2021) (quotation

 3   marks omitted).

 4         The District Court correctly concluded that Herschaft’s claims are barred

 5   by res judicata. “The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment on

 6   the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating

 7   issues that were or could have been raised in that action.” Cho v. Blackberry

 8   Ltd., 991 F.3d 155, 168 (2d Cir. 2021) (quotation marks omitted). Res judicata

 9   “bars later litigation if an earlier decision was (1) a final judgment on the merits,

10   (2) by a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) in a case involving the same parties or

11   their privies, and (4) involving the same cause of action.” Id. (quotation marks

12   omitted). Herschaft does not dispute that his prior lawsuit satisfies these

13   elements. See Herschaft v. N.Y.C. Campaign Fin. Bd. (“Herschaft I”), 127 F.

14   Supp. 2d 164 (E.D.N.Y. 2000), aff’d, 10 F. App’x 21 (2d Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534

15   U.S. 888 (2001). Instead, he argues that his current complaint includes new

16   sources of information that support his claim that the Board’s reporting rules

17   violate his First Amendment rights by requiring him to speak during prayer

18   services and to request and provide identifying information about his campaign

                                               3
 1   contributors in order to qualify for fund matching—all contrary to his faith. We

 2   are not persuaded by this argument. “[R]es judicata applies to issues that were

 3   not raised in the prior action, if they could have been raised in that action,” and it

 4   “applies even where new claims are based on newly discovered evidence.” Cho,

 5   991 F.3d at 168 (quotation marks omitted). We see no reason why Herschaft

 6   could not have pointed to his new sources and claims in Herschaft I.

 7   Accordingly, the District Court did not err in dismissing his claims.

 8         Next, we review the District Court’s denial of leave to amend the

 9   complaint for abuse of discretion. See Kim v. Kimm, 884 F.3d 98, 105 (2d Cir.

10   2018). “Although district judges should, as a general matter, liberally permit pro

11   se litigants to amend their pleadings, leave to amend need not be granted when

12   amendment would be futile.” Terry v. Inc. Vill. of Patchogue, 826 F.3d 631, 633

13   (2d Cir. 2016). “Futility is a determination, as a matter of law, that proposed

14   amendments would fail to cure prior deficiencies or to state a claim.” In re

15   Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conv. Litig., 10 F.4th 147, 175 (2d Cir. 2021) (quotation

16   marks omitted). “To determine whether granting leave to amend would be

17   futile, we consider the proposed amendments and the original complaint.” Id.

                                               4
 1          Herschaft takes issue with N.Y.C. Rules, Tit. 52, § 5-05(b), which went into

 2   effect after Herschaft I was decided, and which provides that funds obtained

 3   through lotteries are not eligible for fund matching. But he does not specify

 4   which of his rights (if any) section 5-05(b) violates. Indeed, as the District Court

 5   recognized, he “raises no claims or arguments regarding Section 5-05(b).” App’x

 6   14. Under these circumstances, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in

 7   denying leave to amend. 1

 8          We have considered Herschaft’s remaining arguments and conclude that

 9   they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District

10   Court is AFFIRMED.

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

     1We do not consider whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend
     to add a Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim or an equal protection claim relating to
     mental illness because Herschaft did not raise those claims in his appellate brief. See Green v.
     Dep’t of Educ., 16 F.4th 1070, 1074 (2d Cir. 2021). We also do not consider whether the District
     Court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend to add a defamation claim because
     Herschaft did not raise the claim in the District Court. See Otal Invs. Ltd. v. M/V Clary, 673 F.3d
     108, 120 (2d Cir. 2012). And we do not consider whether the District Court abused its discretion
     in denying leave to amend to add procedural due process claims regarding a missing
     memorandum in Herschaft I and the district court’s decision not to hold a hearing in Herschaft
     v. N.Y.C. Police Dep’t, No. 18-cv-4770, 2018 WL 4861388 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2018), because
     questions concerning the adequacy of separate proceedings are not properly before this Court.

                                                     5