727 Fed.Appx. 717 (2nd Cir. 2018), 16-1131, Bruno v. City of Schenectady

Docket Nº:16-1131
Citation:727 Fed.Appx. 717
Party Name:Carmencita BRUNO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF SCHENECTADY; Thomas Mattice, individually and as agent of the City of Schenectady; Michael DellaRocco, individually and as agent of the City of Schenectady; John Doe, #5; Faarstad, as John Doe, #4, individually and as agent of the City of Schenectady; John Does, #6-10; Village of Scotia ...
Attorney:FOR APPELLANT: Carmencita Bruno, pro se, Howes Cave, NY. FOR THE CITY APPELLEES: Michael J. Murphy (Brienna L. Christiano, on the brief), Carter, Conboy, Case, Blackmore, Maloney & Laird, P.C., Albany, NY. FOR THE COUNTY APPELLEES: Marc H. Goldberg (William D. Christ, on the brief), Phillips Lytl...
Case Date:March 16, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Page 717

727 Fed.Appx. 717 (2nd Cir. 2018)

Carmencita BRUNO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

The CITY OF SCHENECTADY; Thomas Mattice, individually and as agent of the City of Schenectady; Michael DellaRocco, individually and as agent of the City of Schenectady; John Doe, #5; Faarstad, as John Doe, #4, individually and as agent of the City of Schenectady; John Does, #6-10; Village of Scotia Firefighters Collectively; Mark LaViolette or Kyle Rudolphsen, as John Doe, #5, individually and as agents of the EMS Department of the County of Schenectady; The Village of Scotia; Police Officers with the City of Schenectady, as John Doe, #1, #2, #3, individually and as agents of the City of Schenectady; Police Officer with the City of Schenectady, as Jane Doe, #1, individually and as agent of the City of Schenectady, Defendants-Appellees.1

No. 16-1131

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

March 16, 2018

Editorial Note:

This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter and Not to be Cited as Precedent. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

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 TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

Page 718

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Suddaby, C.J. ).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART.

FOR APPELLANT: Carmencita Bruno, pro se, Howes Cave, NY.

FOR THE CITY APPELLEES: Michael J. Murphy (Brienna L. Christiano, on the brief), Carter, Conboy, Case, Blackmore, Maloney & Laird, P.C., Albany, NY.

FOR THE COUNTY APPELLEES: Marc H. Goldberg (William D. Christ, on the brief), Phillips Lytle, LLP, Albany, NY.

FOR THE VILLAGE APPELLEES: Jonathan M. Bernstein, Goldberg Segalla, LLP, Albany, NY.

PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, AMALYA L. KEARSE, Circuit Judge, J. PAUL OETKEN,[*] District Judge.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Carmencita Bruno, an attorney proceeding pro se, appeals from a March 2016 judgment dismissing her case with prejudice, which followed (1) a February 2014 order dismissing most of Bruno’s claims against the Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), see

Bruno v. City of Schenectady, No. 1:12-CV-0285 GTS/RFT, 2014 WL 689664 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2014); and (2) a March 2016 order granting summary judgment for the Defendants on the remaining

Page 719

claims, see Bruno v. City of Schenectady, No. 1:12-CV-0285 GTS/RFT, 2016 WL 1057041 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2016). Bruno brought claims against three groups of defendants-appellees: the City of Schenectady and seven of its employees (the "City Defendants" or "City Appellees"), the Village of Scotia and five of its employees (the "Village Defendants" or "Village Appellees"), and the County of Schenectady and two of its employees (the "County Defendants" or "County Appellees"). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss, "constru[ing] the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor." Capital Mgmt. Select Fund Ltd. v. Bennett, 680 F.3d 214, 219 (2d Cir. 2012). To avoid dismissal, a complaint must contain enough facts "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).2 This Court also reviews de novo the grant of summary judgment, focusing on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See

Sotomayor v. City of New York, 713 F.3d 163, 164 (2d Cir. 2013). In so doing, this Court construes the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in his or her favor. Id. Summary judgment is appropriate "[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

Although Bruno pursues a number of claims on appeal, two merit discussion beyond that provided by the district court. First, we agree with the district court that Bruno has not sufficiently alleged, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), that either she or her dogs were improperly "seized." The Fourth Amendment protects the rights of individuals "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. "[A] person has beenseized ... only if, in view of all of the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP