McNiece v. Connecticut, 692 F. App'x 655

Pro se plaintiff Adam P. McNiece sued the State of Connecticut, state officials, the Connecticut Judicial Branch, the Town of Waterford, and a law firm claiming violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a due-process right challenge to Connecticut’s statute requiring submission of claims to the Claims Commissioner before suing the State, and various state-law claims.
The District Court dismissed the federal claims based on lack of standing, sovereign immunity, and failure to state a claim, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims; McNiece appealed pro se.
McNiece alleged the Town failed to provide reasonable ADA accommodations by not producing audio recordings of public meetings; he also challenged the pre-suit Claims Commissioner requirement as violating due process.
The Second Circuit reviewed dismissal de novo for failure to state a claim and for standing, and construed pro se filings liberally when appropriate.
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court: (1) McNiece lacked standing for the due-process claim; (2) ADA claims against Connecticut and the Judicial Branch were barred or inadequately pled; and (3) the Town claim, when liberally construed as a Title II ADA failure-to-accommodate claim, still failed for lack of factual allegations showing a requested accommodation or denial of meaningful access.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing for due-process challenge to Claims Commissioner requirement	McNiece argued the statutory pre-suit requirement deprived him of due process	Defendants argued McNiece lacked standing to bring the federal due-process claim	Court: McNiece lacked standing; dismissal affirmed
ADA claim against State and Judicial Branch	McNiece alleged ADA violations by state entities and courts	Defendants asserted sovereign immunity and failure to state an ADA claim	Court: ADA claims dismissed (sovereign immunity / failure to state claim)
Prospective injunctive relief under ADA	McNiece sought injunction prohibiting further discrimination	Defendants noted sovereign immunity and that he did not sue an individual officer	Court: Even though injunctive relief can survive sovereign immunity in theory, McNiece did not sue appropriate individual officers and could not state an ADA claim; dismissal proper
ADA failure-to-accommodate claim against Town of Waterford	McNiece alleged Town failed to provide audio recordings of public meetings	Town argued the claim relied on wrong statutory provision and lacked factual allegations (no request, no denial, no details)	Court: Liberally construed as Title II claim but dismissed for failure to allege requested accommodation, denial, or facts showing denial of meaningful access

Mary Jo C. v. N.Y. State & Local Ret. Sys., 707 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2013) (standards for reviewing failure-to-state claim and sovereign immunity inquiry)
Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009) (Ex parte Young doctrine allows prospective relief against officers in official capacities for ADA claims)
Nowakowski v. New York, 835 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2016) (liberal construction of pro se submissions)
Wright v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr., 831 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2016) (Title II requires denial of meaningful access to services, programs, or activities)
Tsombanidis v. W. Haven Fire Dep’t, 352 F.3d 565 (2d Cir. 2003) (plaintiff must give governmental entity opportunity to accommodate to prevail on reasonable accommodation claim)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2013) (appellate affirmance may rest on any basis supported by record)
LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1995) (issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned)