18‐621
Adams v. City of New York
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 6th day of March, two thousand
nineteen.
PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE,
DENNIS JACOBS,
PETER W. HALL,
Circuit Judges.
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐X
CHARLES ADAMS,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v. 18‐621
CITY OF NEW YORK, WILLIAM J.
BRATTON, NEW YORK CITY POLICE
1
COMMISSIONER, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY, BILL DE
BLASIO, MAYOR, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MAYOR
OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, BUTLER,
NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICE, OF
THE 78TH PRECINCT AT 65 6TH AVE,
BROOKLYN NY 11215, IN THEIR
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, RAGONE,
NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICE, OF
THE 78TH PRECINCT AT 65 6TH AVE,
BROOKLYN NY 11215, IN THEIR
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, PRINCE,
NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICE, OF
THE 78TH PRECINCT AT 65 6TH AVE,
BROOKLYN NY 11215, IN THEIR
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, CONRAD,
LIEUTENANT, OF ANDREWS
INTERNATIONAL, IN HIS
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, ANDREWS
INTERNATIONAL, BEST BUY CO., INC.,
(NYSR:BBY), NICK THOMAS, OF
BESTBUY CO., INC, IN HIS
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, FIRST NEW
YORK PARTNERS MANAGEMENT,
LLC,
Defendants‐Appellees.
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐X
FOR PLAINTIFF‐APPELLANT: Charles Adams, pro se, Brooklyn,
NY.
2
FOR DEFENDANTS‐APPELLEES
MANN; ANDREWS INTERNATIONAL;
FIRST NEW YORK PARTNERS
MANAGEMENT, LLC: Robert S. Nobel, Brian M. Healy,
Traub Lieberman Straus &
Shrewsberry LLP, Hawthorne, NY.
FOR DEFENDANTS‐APPELLEES
THOMAS; BEST BUY CO., INC.: Stephen M. Knudsen, Durkin &
Durkin, LLC, New York, NY.
FOR CITY OF NEW YORK
AND REMAINING
DEFENDANTS‐APPELLEES: Eric Lee, Assistant Corporation
Counsel (Fay Ng, of Counsel), for
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation
Counsel of the City of New York,
New York, NY.
Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Kuntz, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Appellant Charles Adams, pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment
dismissing his complaint. Adams brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq., and state law in
connection with his shoplifting arrest. He named as defendants the City of
New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio, the New York City Police Department
(“NYPD”), NYPD Commissioner William Bratton, and NYPD officers Butler,
Ragone, Prince, and Jane and John Does 1 through 10 (the City defendants); Best
3
Buy Co., Inc. and its employee Nick Thomas (the Best Buy defendants); and
Andrews International, Lieutenant Conrad Mann of Andrews International, and
First New York Partners Management, LLC (the Mall defendants). By a March
31, 2017 order, the district court dismissed the majority of Adams’s claims for
failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). By
a February 6, 2018 order, the district court dismissed the remainder of Adams’s
complaint for failure to prosecute or comply with the court’s orders pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). We assume the parties’ familiarity with
the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim,
see Lucas v. United States, 775 F.3d 544, 547 (2d Cir. 2015), and review dismissals
for failure to prosecute “for an abuse of discretion in light of the record as a
whole,” Baptiste v. Sommers, 768 F.3d 212, 216 (2d Cir. 2014) (per curiam).
While we “liberally construe pleadings and briefs submitted by pro se
litigants, reading such submissions to raise the strongest arguments they
suggest,” McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017)
(internal quotation marks omitted), pro se appellants must still comply with
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a), which “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) (per
curiam). “Although we accord filings from pro se litigants a high degree of
solicitude, even a litigant representing himself is obliged to set out identifiable
arguments in his principal brief.” Terry v. Incorporated Vill. of Patchogue, 826
F.3d 631, 632‐33 (2d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also
Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998) (“Issues not sufficiently
argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed
on appeal.”); LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92‐93 (2d Cir. 1995) (pro
se litigant abandons issue by failing to address it in his appellate brief).
Adams’s brief on appeal focuses on a contention that state and federal
actors lack authority over citizens. His brief and reply brief make no more than
cursory arguments that the defendants violated his rights while acting under
4
color of law and that the district court lacked authority to dismiss his complaint.
He entirely fails to address the bases for the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983
claims‐‐which were (1) failure to allege personal involvement of certain
individual defendants; (2) failure to adequately allege the existence of a City
policy or practice that caused a constitutional violation; and (3) failure to
adequately allege that the Best Buy and Mall defendants acted under color of
state law. Nor does he address the basis of the district court’s dismissal of his
state law claims against the City, i.e., failure to file a notice of claim against the
City as required by state law. He does not object to the district court’s decision
declining to exercise jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims. He also
does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that all of the relevant factors
favored dismissal of his suit for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders.
Because Adams has failed to challenge the bases for the district court’s
dismissal of his complaint in his brief on appeal, he has abandoned any such
challenges. See Barkley, 147 F.3d at 209. We have considered Adams’s
remaining arguments and conclude they are without merit. The judgment of
the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
5