Meehan v. State of New York

Second Circuit

Meehan v. State of New York

423 F. App'x 69

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 27, 2011

Docket09-4973-pr

StatusUnpublished

This text of 423 F. App'x 69 (Meehan v. State of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meehan v. State of New York, 423 F. App'x 69 (2d Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

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 *70 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 Coreraft 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” (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.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

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 *70 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 Coreraft 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” (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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

423 F. App'x 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meehan-v-state-of-new-york-ca2-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack