10-1388-pr
Brito v. Castillo
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUM M ARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUM M ARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERM ITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUM M ARY ORDER IN A
DOCUM ENT FILED W ITH THIS COURT, A PARTY M UST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (W ITH THE NOTATION “SUM M ARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUM M ARY ORDER
M UST 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 22nd day of December, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
GUIDO CALABRESI,
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
Circuit Judges.
________________________________________________
Bartolome Brito,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. 10-1388-pr
Gloria Herron Arthur, Attorney at Law, Individually and in
Official Capacity, Gaspar M. Castillo, Jr., Attorney at Law,
Individually and in Official Capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________________________________
FOR APPELLANT: Bartolome Brito, pro se, Ossining, N.Y.
FOR APPELLEES: Dennis B. Schlenker, Esq., Albany, N.Y.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
New York (Kahn, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-Appellant Bartolome Brito, pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment
granting Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss his complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural
history.
This Court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual
allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.
See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). The complaint must
plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are
generally assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).
Because all of Appellant’s claims were brought pursuant to either 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3)
or 1986, the existence of a conspiracy, as provided for under § 1985(3), was essential to each
cause of action alleged. Gagliardi v. Vill. of Pawling, 18 F.3d 188, 194 (2d Cir. 1994). To state
a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, Appellant must have alleged: (1) some racial or other
class-based discriminatory animus underlying the Appellees’ actions; and (2) that the conspiracy
was aimed at interfering with Appellant’s protected rights. Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health
2
Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 268 (1993). Complaints containing only “conclusory, vague, or general
allegations of a conspiracy to deprive a person of constitutional rights” will be dismissed. Ostrer
v. Aronwald, 567 F.2d 551, 553 (2d Cir. 1977) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Aside from conclusory assertions, Appellant failed to provide any factual allegations that
Appellees engaged in a conspiracy, or that they were motivated by unlawful discriminatory intent
or animus. Having conducted an independent review of the record and case law in light of these
principles, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the reasons stated by the
district court in its thorough and well-reasoned memorandum decision and order. We have
considered all of Appellant’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3