Mecca v. United States Government

232 F. App'x 66
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided August 17, 2007·No. Nos. 06-5305-cv, 07-2621-op·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs-Appellants John Mecca and Deborah Rae Lamb appeal from the October 4, 2006 Memorandum and Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Seybert, J.) dismissing their complaint sua sponte pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Appellants also petitioned for a writ of mandamus, seeking to set an immediate, or substantially earlier, calendar date for oral argument in their appeal and seeking access to this Court’s records concerning the denial of their previous motions to expedite their appeal. On July 13, 2007, this Court issued an order referring the mandamus petition to this panel. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

The district court dismissed the complaint because it was “replete with fantastic and delusional scenarios.” We review such 12(b)(6) dismissals de novo, Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002), and conclude that Appellants’ claims were properly dismissed for [67]*67failure to state a colorable claim. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellants’ complaint is AFFIRMED, and Appellants’ motion for a writ of mandamus is DENIED. Their motion to file a late reply brief is GRANTED, and all other outstanding motions in these cases are DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mecca v. United States Government, 232 F. App'x 66 (2d Cir. 2007).

232 F. App'x 66 (Mecca v. United States Government) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Untitled Case
E.D. New York, 2026
Lin v. Lin
S.D. New York, 2022
Burton v. USA
E.D. New York, 2022
Coppedge v. New York State
E.D. New York, 2022