14‐1398
Catalino Espinosa v. McCabe, et al.
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 ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY
CITING TO 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 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
Square, in the City of New York, on the 19th day of May, two thousand fifteen.
PRESENT:
AMALYA L. KEARSE,
BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
CATALINO ESPINOSA,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v. No. 14‐1398
McCABE, Sergeant at Bare Hill Correctional
Facility, ARQUETTE, Officer at Bare Hill
Correctional Facility, LEON CARTER,
Correction Officer, AKA Canton,
1
SOUTHWORTH, Officer at Bare Hill
Correctional Facility, EDWARD
HUGABOOM, Nurse at Bare Hill
Correctional Facility, JORGE L. SERRANO,
Counselor at Bare Hill Correctional Facility,
Defendants‐Appellees.*
_____________________________________
For Plaintiff‐Appellant: Catalino Espinosa, pro se, Attica, NY.
For Defendants‐Appellees: Andrew B. Ayers, Assistant Solicitor
General (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor
General, Paul Groenwegen Assistant
Solicitor General, on the brief), for Eric T.
Schneiderman, Attorney General of the
State of New York, Albany, NY.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York (D’Agostino, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the appeal is HELD IN ABEYANCE.
Plaintiff‐Appellant Catalino Espinosa, proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s judgment in favor of the Defendants‐Appellees on his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 claims for excessive force and deliberate indifference following a jury
* The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption as above.
2
verdict. He has filed a brief on appeal that contains no information about his
case or this appeal.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a) “requires appellants in their
briefs to provide the court with a clear statement of the issues on appeal.” Moates
v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 209 (2d Cir. 1998). This Court “normally will not[] decide
issues that a party fails to raise in his or her appellate brief,” even for pro se
litigants. Id. Espinosa’s brief, even liberally construed, identifies no issues for
this Court to examine on appeal. Although the statement in his brief that he
seeks remand for a fair and impartial trial suggests that he wishes to challenge the
jury verdict, he has raised no specific challenge to the jury trial. Moreover,
because Espinosa has not provided transcripts of the trial proceedings, we lack
the ability to conduct meaningful appellate review of the jury trial. Wrighten v.
Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam).
Within thirty days of the date of this order, Espinosa is required to submit
an additional letter brief explaining what issues he raises on appeal and the exact
nature of those challenges. To the extent that Espinosa raises issues that would
require an examination of the trial transcript, he must also provide the necessary
3
transcripts in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b). Fed.
R. App. P. 10(b)(1)(A), (B) (explaining that it is the appellant’s duty to “order from
the reporter a transcript of such parts of the proceedings not already on file as the
appellant considers necessary . . . ; or [] file a certificate stating that no transcript
will be ordered”). If Espinosa wishes to seek free transcripts, he must first move
in the district court and demonstrate financial need and that his appeal is “not
frivolous (but presents a substantial question).” 28 U.S.C. § 753(f).
Accordingly, we hold the appeal in ABEYANCE until Espinosa submits a
letter brief identifying his issues on appeal within thirty days of this order.
Should Espinosa wish to raise issues requiring trial transcripts, he must also
submit either the transcripts, or proof that he has sought free transcripts from the
district court, at the same time that he submits his letter brief.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4
Catalino Espinosa v. McCabe
Combined Opinion