09-3699-cv
Gooden v. State of CT
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
AMENDED 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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United
States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on
the 7th day of May, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
GUIDO CALABRESI,
ROBERT D. SACK,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
Circuit Judges.
____________________________________
Courtney Gooden,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 09-3699-cv
Connecticut Department of Correction,
William Barber, Supt. Unified School
District #1 I/O, Marcia Wade, former
principal, J.B. Gates C.I., I/O,
Defendants-Appellees.
_____________________________________
1
2 FOR APPELLANT: Courtney Gooden, pro se, Waterford, Connecticut.
3
4 FOR APPELLEES: Maria A. Santos, Assistant Attorney General,
5 Hartford, Connecticut, for Richard Blumenthal,
6 Attorney General of the State of Connecticut.
7
1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court
2 for the District of Connecticut (Hall, J.).
3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
4 DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.
5 Appellant appeals from the district court’s order granting
6 Appellee Barber’s motion to dismiss his complaint as to all
7 Appellees on grounds of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and
8 failure to prosecute. We assume the parties’ familiarity with
9 the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on
10 appeal.
11 We reject Appellant’s argument that this Court should grant
12 him leave to amend his complaint. First, courts of appeal do not
13 generally consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.
14 See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120-21 (1976). Second, the
15 power to grant such leave is reserved to the district court. See
16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (explaining that the Federal Rules of Civil
17 Procedure govern district court proceedings), 15(a)(2) (providing
18 for amendment with consent or leave of court). Third, the
19 district court did afford Appellant an opportunity to amend in
20 its order dismissing the case, but Appellant did not do so.
21 Appellant has abandoned any challenge to the district
22 court’s order dismissing his complaint by failing to address that
23 order in his original brief. See Evangelista v. Ashcroft, 359
24 F.3d 145, 155-56 n.4 (2d Cir. 2004) (this Court generally does
25 not consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief);
2
1 LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir. 1995)
2 (when a litigant, even if proceeding pro se, raises an issue
3 before the district court but does not raise it on appeal, it is
4 abandoned). In any event, we find no error in the district
5 court’s carefully-reasoned conclusions. We have considered
6 Appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without
7 merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
8 AFFIRMED.
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
11
3