17‐255
Adamou v. Doyle
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
“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 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
Square, in the City of New York, on the 2nd day of January, two thousand
eighteen.
PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
PETER W. HALL,
Circuit Judges.
______________________
IDRISSA ADAMOU,
Plaintiff‐Appellee,
v. No. 17‐255
DETECTIVE EDWARD J. DOYLE, in his
individual capacity,
Defendant‐Appellant.1
______________________
1 The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption to conform to the
above.
FOR PLAINTIFF‐APPELLEE: Richard L. Giampa, Zachary Giampa,
Richard L. Giampa, Esq. P.C., Bronx, NY,
on the brief.
FOR DEFENDANT‐APPELLANT: MARK A. RADI, Sokoloff Stern LLP, Carle
Place, NY.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the March 9, 2017 Order of the district court
is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED with instructions to grant
Defendant‐Appellant’s motion to dismiss.
Defendant‐Appellant Detective Edward J. Doyle appeals from a January
12, 2017 Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Carter, J.), clarifying an Order of March 14, 2016, that denied
Detective Doyle’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on
the basis of absolute and qualified immunity. Detective Doyle also appeals from
a March 9, 2017 Order of the same court, denying his Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. We assume the parties’
familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.
We note at the outset that we do not possess jurisdiction to review the
district court’s January 12, 2017 Order. That Order merely clarified the court’s
March 14, 2016 Order denying Detective Doyle’s motion to dismiss and did not
“alter the substantive rights affected by the first judgment.” In re Am. Safety
Indem. Co., 502 F.3d 70, 72 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Farkas v. Rumore, 101 F.3d 20, 23
(2d Cir. 1996)). Accordingly, the 30‐day deadline to file an appeal from the
district court’s denial of Detective Doyle’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss ran
from March 14, 2016—the date of the first judgment on the motion. Detective
Doyle’s appeal of the January 12, 2017 Order is therefore untimely. We do have
jurisdiction, however, over Detective Doyle’s timely appeal from the March 9,
2017 Order denying his 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings.
We review the denial of absolute or qualified immunity de novo. See
Giraldo v. Kessler, 694 F.3d 161, 165 (2d Cir. 2012) (absolute immunity); Benzman v.
Whitman, 523 F.3d 119, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (qualified immunity). Under Rehberg v.
Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 369 (2012), a grand jury witness, including a law enforcement
officer, “has absolute immunity from any § 1983 claim based on the witness’
testimony,” even if that testimony is perjurious. Detective Doyle is entitled to
absolute immunity in this case because plaintiff’s claims are “’based on’” his
allegedly false grand jury testimony, “as that term is used in Rehberg.” Coggins v.
Buonora, 776 F.3d 108, 113 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Rehberg, 566 U.S. at 369).
Accordingly, the March 9, 2017 Order of the district court is REVERSED
and the case REMANDED with instructions to grant Detective Doyle’s motion to
dismiss.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk