Thompson v. Grey

09-4149-pr Thompson v. Grey 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 “ 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 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 20 th day of July, two thousand and ten. 5 6 PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 7 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 8 Circuit Judges, 9 RICHARD W. GOLDBERG, 10 Judge. * 11 12 13 14 PAUL THOMPSON, 15 16 Appellant, 17 18 -v.- 09-4149-pr 19 20 DETECTIVE TIMOTHY GREY, et al., 21 22 Appellees. ** 23 24 25 * The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. ** The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption as set forth above. 1 FOR APPELLANT: PAUL THOMPSON, pro se, Comstock, NY. 2 3 FOR APPELLEE: LARRY A. SONNENSHEIN and SHLOMIT AROUBAS, 4 for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation 5 Counsel of the City of New York, New 6 York, NY. 7 8 Appeal from an August 26, 2009 judgment of the United 9 States District Court for the Eastern District of New York 10 (Weinstein, J.). 11 12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 13 AND DECREED that the judgment of the United States District 14 Court for the Eastern District of New York be AFFIRMED. 15 Appellant appeals, pro se, from a judgment of the 16 United States District Court for the Eastern District of New 17 York, which granted appellees’ motion to dismiss his 18 complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Appellant’s 19 complaint alleged violations under the Sixth and Fourteenth 20 Amendments, as well as allegations of false arrest and 21 malicious prosecution. We assume the parties’ familiarity 22 with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the 23 issues presented for review. 24 Upon a de novo review of the record, “construing the 25 complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in 26 the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable 27 inferences” in favor of the appellant, Chambers v. Time 28 Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002), we conclude 2 1 that the district court properly dismissed all of 2 appellant’s claims. 1 3 As the district court properly recognized, there is no 4 cause of action for the state’s failure to prosecute another 5 person under section 1983. Thompson v. Grey, No. 08 Civ. 6 4499 (JBW), 2009 WL 2707397, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2009) 7 (citing Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973)). 8 Appellant’s false arrest and malicious prosecution claims 9 also fail. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). 10 We have considered all of appellant’s contentions on 11 appeal, and find them to be without merit. Therefore, for 12 substantially the reasons stated by the district court, the 13 judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED. 14 15 FOR THE COURT: 16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 17 18 1 On appeal, appellant does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of his claim against the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York or the Richmond County District Attorney’s Office. We therefore deem those claims abandoned. LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir. 1995). 3