09-3699-cv
Gooden v. State of CT
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SECOND 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 20th 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,
1
1 Connecticut.
2
3 FOR APPELLEES: MARIA A. SANTOS, Assistant Attorney General
4 (Josephine S. Graff, Assistant Attorney General,
5 on the brief), Hartford, Connecticut, for Richard
6 Blumenthal, Attorney General of the State of
7 Connecticut.
8 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court
9 for the District of Connecticut (Hall, J.).
10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
11 DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.
12 Appellant appeals from the district court’s order granting
13 Appellee Barber’s motion to dismiss his complaint as to all
14 Appellees on grounds of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and
15 failure to prosecute. We assume the parties’ familiarity with
16 the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on
17 appeal.
18 We reject Appellant’s argument that this Court should grant
19 him leave to amend his complaint. First, courts of appeal do
20 not generally consider issues raised for the first time on
21 appeal. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120-21 (1976).
22 Second, the power to grant such leave is reserved to the
23 district court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (explaining that the
24 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern district court
25 proceedings), 15(a)(2) (providing for amendment with consent or
2
1 leave of court). Third, the district court did afford Appellant
2 an opportunity to amend in its order dismissing the case, but
3 Appellant did not do so.
4 Appellant has abandoned any challenge to the district
5 court’s order dismissing his complaint by failing to address
6 that order in his original brief. See Evangelista v. Ashcroft,
7 359 F.3d 145, 155-56 n.4 (2d Cir. 2004) (this Court generally
8 does not consider issues raised for the first time in a reply
9 brief); LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d
10 Cir. 1995) (when a litigant, even if proceeding pro se, raises
11 an issue before the district court but does not raise it on
12 appeal, it is abandoned). In any event, we find no error in the
13 district court’s carefully-reasoned conclusions. We have
14 considered Appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be
15 without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court
16 is AFFIRMED.
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
19
3