Meehan v. State of New York

09-4973-pr
Meehan v. State 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New
York, on the 27th day of May, two thousand eleven.
PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
J. CLIFFORD WALLACE,*
Circuit Judges.
__________________________________________
DENNIS MEEHAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. 09-4973-pr
STATE OF NEW YORK, N.Y. STATE DEPT. OF
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, CORCRAFT
INDUSTRIES, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,**
___________________________________________
FOR APPELLANT: Dennis Meehan, pro se, Fallsburg, New York.
*
Senior Judge J. Clifford Wallace of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, sitting by designation.
**
The Clerk of Court is instructed to amend the official caption in this case to conform
to the listing of the parties above.
FOR APPELLEES: Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Nancy A. Spiegel,
Senior Assistant Solicitor General, Victor Paladino, Assistant
Solicitor General, for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General,
Albany, New York.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
New York (Scullin, J.; DiBianco, M.J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.
Dennis Meehan, pro se, appeals from the district court’s dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e), of his complaint against the State of New York, the New York State Department of
Correctional Services, and Corcraft Industries, and its summary judgment for the remaining
defendants. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the relevant facts and procedural history.
We review a district court’s 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) dismissal de novo. See Giano v.
Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir. 2001). We also review a summary judgment de novo,
resolving all ambiguities and drawing all permissible inferences in favor of the non-moving
party. See Redd v. Wright, 597 F.3d 532, 535 (2d Cir. 2010).
Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record, we affirm the district
court’s orders for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and
well-reasoned decisions. With respect to the October 11, 2006, order, although Meehan was not
given the opportunity to amend his complaint prior to dismissal, see McEachin v. McGuinnis,
357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004), such amendment would have been futile because Corcraft
Industries is immune from his claims, see Komlosi v. N.Y. State Office of Mental Retardation
and Dev. Disabilities, 64 F.3d 810, 815 (2d Cir. 1995) (sovereign immunity applies to
“governmental entities that are considered arms of the state for Eleventh Amendment purposes”
2
(quotation marks omitted)). With respect to the September 29, 2009, order, Meehan failed to
exhaust all available administrative remedies before bringing his federal suit, see 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a), and has not shown any special circumstances that would justify this failure, see
Brownell v. Krom, 446 F.3d 305, 311-12 (2d Cir. 2006).
We have considered Appellant’s other arguments on appeal and conclude that they are
without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3