Vargas v. Wughalter

Second Circuit

Vargas v. Wughalter

380 F. App'x 110

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 14, 2010

Docket09-3764-cv

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 380 F. App'x 110 (Vargas v. Wughalter) 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

Vargas v. Wughalter, 380 F. App'x 110 (2d Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Hector Vargas sued defendants for, inter alia, conspiring to deprive him of various constitutional and contractual rights. He now appeals from the dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review the dismissal of a complaint de novo, “accepting all factual allegations as true, but giving no effect to legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.” Starr v. Sony BMG Music Entm’t, 592 F.3d 314, 321 (2d Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although we liberally construe Vargas’s pro se complaint, see Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir.2006), it “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)); see also Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir.2009) (applying Iqbal and Twombly to pro se complaint). Our de novo review of the record confirms that Vargas’s complaint failed to meet this standard. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court substantially for the reasons stated in its thorough and well-reasoned decision.

We have considered Vargas’s other arguments on appeal and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

We have also considered the motion by defendants 2727 Realty LLC, Stanley Wasserman, S.W. Management LLC, Martin Blum, and Tom Torres for an injunction precluding future litigation by Vargas without his first obtaining this court’s approval. Although we DENY defendants’ motion to impose a sanction today, we warn Vargas that filing future meritless appeals may lead to the imposition of monetary sanctions and/or leave-to-file require *112 ments in this court. See In re Martin-Trigona, 9 F.3d 226, 229 (2d Cir.1993).

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Hector Vargas sued defendants for, inter alia, conspiring to deprive him of various constitutional and contractual rights. He now appeals from the dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review the dismissal of a complaint de novo, “accepting all factual allegations as true, but giving no effect to legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.” Starr v. Sony BMG Music Entm’t, 592 F.3d 314, 321 (2d Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although we liberally construe Vargas’s pro se complaint, see Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir.2006), it “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)); see also Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir.2009) (applying Iqbal and Twombly to pro se complaint). Our de novo review of the record confirms that Vargas’s complaint failed to meet this standard. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court substantially for the reasons stated in its thorough and well-reasoned decision.

We have considered Vargas’s other arguments on appeal and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

We have also considered the motion by defendants 2727 Realty LLC, Stanley Wasserman, S.W. Management LLC, Martin Blum, and Tom Torres for an injunction precluding future litigation by Vargas without his first obtaining this court’s approval. Although we DENY defendants’ motion to impose a sanction today, we warn Vargas that filing future meritless appeals may lead to the imposition of monetary sanctions and/or leave-to-file require *112 ments in this court. See In re Martin-Trigona, 9 F.3d 226, 229 (2d Cir.1993).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

380 F. App'x 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vargas-v-wughalter-ca2-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack