Schvimmer v. Randall

22-2851
Schvimmer v. Randall
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 TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
3 New York, on the 17th day of November, two thousand twenty-three.
4
5 PRESENT:
6 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
7 ROBERT D. SACK
8 MYRNA PÉREZ,
9 Circuit Judges.
10 _____________________________________
11
12 Israel Schvimmer, Miriam Schvimmer,
13
14 Plaintiffs-Appellants,
15
16
17 v. 22-2851
18
19 New York City Police Detective Buckner, of the
20 79th Precinct, David A. Hansell, (Reg. #1950179)
21 individually and as NYC Commissioner of the
22 Administration for Children’s Services, Rebecca
23 Elizabeth Szewczuk, (Reg. #4686903)
24 individually and as Attorney for NYC ACS-
25 Kings County (Family Court) and Attorney for
26 Corporation Counsel of the City of New York,
27 Ian Sangenito, (Reg. #3035235) individually and
28 as Attorney for NYC ACS (Brooklyn Office)
29 Kings County Family Court, John Anthony
1 Morgano, (Reg. #4558565) individually and as
2 Attorney for NYC ACS, and as Attorney for
3 Corporation Counsel of the City of New York,
4 Kathy Ann Best, individually and as Caseworker
5 for NYC-ACS, Carmalita Cyrus, individually
6 and as Supervisor #1 for NYC-ACS, Karen
7 McNeely, individually and as Caseworker for
8 NYC-ACS, Airat Bakara Adejobi, individually
9 and as a Supervisor for NYC-ACS, Cecily
10 Francis, individually and as NYC-ACS
11 Supervisor, Beverly Drayton, individually and as
12 Caseworker for NYC-ACS, Peter Hill, LCSW
13 (LIC #028238) individually and as Caseworker
14 for NYC-ACS, Syndia Semexant, individually
15 and as Caseworker for NYC-ACS, Wanda
16 Fraser, Christine, individually and as
17 Caseworker for NYC-ACS, AKA Lottie
18 Henderson, Nicholas P. Smith, LCSW (LIC #)
19 individually and as Caseworker for NYC-ACS,
20 Harvey S. Jacobs, Sally Simone Markowitz,
21 (Reg. #3986031) individually, private Attorney
22 Court appointed, Rabbi Azriel Juda Katz,
23 Liaison for New York City Administration for
24 Children’s Services, Billa Tessler Bendet, LCSW
25 (LIC #045031) individually and as Court
26 appointed Therapist, Roderick Randall, City of
27 New York, Joyce Hopkins, John Coakley,
28 Deputy Clerk, Kings County Family Court,
29
30 Defendants-Appellees,
31
32 The Office of Court Administration, New York
33 State Office of Children and Family Services,
34 Corporation Counsel of the City of New York,
35 Jeanette Vega-Alvarez, (LIC #041405)
36 individually and as NYC-ACS Supervisor FSU,
37 Jonathen Caceras, individually and as
38 Caseworker for NYC-ACS, Lorek Grazna,
39 individually and as Caseworker for NYC-ACS,
40 Chigewe Chisaramokwu, individually and as
41 Caseworker for NYC-ACS, Sharon St. Hill,
42 individually and as Caseworker for NYC-ACS,
2
1 Emmanuelle Flax, individually and as
2 Caseworker for NYC-ACS,
3
4 Defendants.
5 _____________________________________
6
7
8 FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: MIRIAM SCHVIMMER (Israel
9 Schvimmer, on the brief), pro
10 se, Brooklyn, NY.
11
12 FOR MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: HANNAH J. SAROKIN
13 (Rebecca L. Visgaitis,
14 Jonathan Schoepp-Wong, on
15 the brief), Of Counsel, for
16 Hon. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix,
17 Corporation Counsel of the
18 City of New York, New
19 York, NY.
20
21 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES HILL AND SMITH: BRANDON BERKOWSKI
22 (Eileen Becker, on the brief),
23 Fullerton Beck LLP, North
24 Haven, CT.
25
26 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES DAVID LAWERENCE III,
27 RANDALL, HOPKINS, AND COAKLEY: Assistant Solicitor General
28 (Barbara D. Underwood,
29 Solicitor General, Ester
30 Murdukhayeva, Deputy
31 Solicitor General, on the
32 brief), for Letitia James,
33 Attorney General, State of
34 New York, New York, NY.
35
36 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE BENDET: David S. Rutherford,
37 Rutherford & Christie, LLP,
38 New York, NY
39
40 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE JACOBS: Harvey S. Jacobs, pro se,
41 New York, NY.
3
1
2 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE KATZ: Azriel Juda Katz, pro se,
3 Brooklyn, NY.
4
5 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE MARKOWITZ: Sally Simone Markowitz, pro
6 se, Highlands Ranch, CO.
7
8 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
9 York (Pamela K. Chen, Judge).
10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
11 DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
12 Plaintiffs-Appellants Israel and Miriam Schvimmer (“the Schvimmers”) appeal—pursuant
13 to 28 U.S.C. § 1291—the district court’s judgment, entered on September 30, 2022, granting
14 Defendants-Appellees’ respective motions to dismiss. We assume the parties’ familiarity with
15 the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary
16 to explain our decision to affirm.
17 On June 21, 2021, the Schvimmers filed their Second Amended Complaint, alleging ten
18 claims—nine federal claims and one claim under New York state law—against over twenty
19 defendants. On September 29, 2022, the district court granted Defendants-Appellees’ respective
20 motions to dismiss and dismissed with prejudice all of the Schvimmers’ claims against
21 Defendants-Appellees. 1 “We review the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo, accepting all
22 factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the
23 plaintiff.” Olson v. Major League Baseball, 29 F.4th 59, 71 (2d Cir. 2022) (citation omitted).
1
The district court dismissed some of the Schvimmers’ claims against certain Defendants-Appellees sua sponte.
4
1 “In conducting our review, we construe complaints filed by pro se litigants liberally and interpret
2 them to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Hunter v. McMahon, 75 F.4th 62, 67
3 (2d Cir. 2023) (brackets, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).
4 With those principles in mind, and after an independent review, we affirm the district
5 court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its careful and
6 well-reasoned memorandum and order. See generally Schvimmer v. Randall, 18-CV-7419 (PKC)
7 (JRC), 2022 WL 4586086 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2022). In sum, the Schvimmers’ Second Amended
8 Complaint fails to state any plausible claims upon which relief may be granted against Defendants-
9 Appellees. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
10 * * *
11 Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
12
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
5