Wiercinski v. Mangia 57, Inc.

Second Circuit

Wiercinski v. Mangia 57, Inc.

698 F. App'x 8

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 3, 2017

Docket16-3442-cv

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 698 F. App'x 8 (Wiercinski v. Mangia 57, Inc.) 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

Wiercinski v. Mangia 57, Inc., 698 F. App'x 8 (2d Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Adam Wiercinski (“Wiercinski”), proceeding pro se, has already appeared before our court twice before. After Wiercinski’s second appeal was dismissed sua sponte as frivolous, Wiercinski v. Mangia 57, Inc., No. 15-3152 (2d Cir. Dec. 10, 2015), Wiercinski filed two motions in the district court: (1) a motion for a new trial or a reversal of the district court’s decision; and (2) a motion ordering defendants to pay attorney’s fees and $1 in nominal damages. The district court denied both motions in an order entered on September 13, 2016, and Wiercinski now appeals from that order. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

The district court correctly denied Wier-cinski’s motions based on the law of the case doctrine, which “forecloses reconsideration of issues that were decided—or that could have been decided—during pri- or proceedings” in the same case. United States v. Williams, 475 F.3d 468, 471 (2d Cir. 2007). One branch of that doctrine, the mandate rule, “prevents re-litigation in the district court not only of matters expressly decided by the appellate court, but also precludes re-litigation of issues impliedly resolved by the appellate court’s mandate.” Brown v. City of Syracuse, 673 F.3d 141, 147 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Yick Man Mui *9 v. United States, 614 F.3d 50, 53 (2d Cir. 2010)). Wiercinski’s arguments on appeal are squarely foreclosed by our rulings in his two prior appeals. See Wiercinski v. Mangia 57, Inc., 787 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2015); Wiercinski v. Mangia 57, Inc., No. 15-3152 (2d Cir. Dec. 10, 2015). Further, although Wiercinski argues that the district court demonstrated bias before, during, and after trial, this issue could have been raised in his first appeal and is therefore also barred by the law of the case. See United States v. Quintieri, 306 F.3d 1217, 1229 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[WJhere an issue was ripe for review at the time of an initial appeal but was nonetheless foregone, it is considered waived and the law of the case doctrine bars ... an appellate court in a subsequent appeal from reopening such issues....” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

We have considered Wiercinski’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s order.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Adam Wiercinski (“Wiercinski”), proceeding pro se, has already appeared before our court twice before. After Wiercinski’s second appeal was dismissed sua sponte as frivolous, Wiercinski v. Mangia 57, Inc., No. 15-3152 (2d Cir. Dec. 10, 2015), Wiercinski filed two motions in the district court: (1) a motion for a new trial or a reversal of the district court’s decision; and (2) a motion ordering defendants to pay attorney’s fees and $1 in nominal damages. The district court denied both motions in an order entered on September 13, 2016, and Wiercinski now appeals from that order. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

The district court correctly denied Wier-cinski’s motions based on the law of the case doctrine, which “forecloses reconsideration of issues that were decided—or that could have been decided—during pri- or proceedings” in the same case. United States v. Williams, 475 F.3d 468, 471 (2d Cir. 2007). One branch of that doctrine, the mandate rule, “prevents re-litigation in the district court not only of matters expressly decided by the appellate court, but also precludes re-litigation of issues impliedly resolved by the appellate court’s mandate.” Brown v. City of Syracuse, 673 F.3d 141, 147 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Yick Man Mui *9 v. United States, 614 F.3d 50, 53 (2d Cir. 2010)). Wiercinski’s arguments on appeal are squarely foreclosed by our rulings in his two prior appeals. See Wiercinski v. Mangia 57, Inc., 787 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2015); Wiercinski v. Mangia 57, Inc., No. 15-3152 (2d Cir. Dec. 10, 2015). Further, although Wiercinski argues that the district court demonstrated bias before, during, and after trial, this issue could have been raised in his first appeal and is therefore also barred by the law of the case. See United States v. Quintieri, 306 F.3d 1217, 1229 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[WJhere an issue was ripe for review at the time of an initial appeal but was nonetheless foregone, it is considered waived and the law of the case doctrine bars ... an appellate court in a subsequent appeal from reopening such issues....” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

We have considered Wiercinski’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

698 F. App'x 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wiercinski-v-mangia-57-inc-ca2-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack