Russo v. City of New York
705 F. App'x 38
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Anthony John Russo, a tenured NYC teacher, was terminated after a 3020-a arbitration; state courts (including NY Court of Appeals) affirmed the termination in 2015.
- Russo filed a § 1983 suit in federal district court (E.D.N.Y.) in February 2016 challenging constitutional aspects of his termination and the arbitration process.
- The district court dismissed Russo’s complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as barred by res judicata (claim preclusion) and denied leave to amend as futile; in forma pauperis status for appeal was denied.
- Russo’s motion for reconsideration was denied; the district court again found appealability not in good faith.
- Russo appealed pro se to the Second Circuit, which applied de novo review to the res judicata dismissal and denial of leave to amend, and abuse-of-discretion review to reconsideration denial.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding Russo’s federal claims were precluded because they arose from the same transaction(s) resolved in state-court proceedings and the state forum could have afforded the relief sought.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Russo's § 1983 claims are barred by claim preclusion (res judicata) | Russo: federal claims not raised in state action, so not precluded | Defendants: state-court judgment precludes relitigation of claims arising from same facts | Affirmed — claims precluded under New York transactional approach; Migra controls federal preclusion by state law |
| Whether dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B) was proper | Russo: dismissal improper because federal claims distinct | District: sua sponte dismissal proper due to res judicata | Affirmed — dismissal valid; court may raise res judicata sua sponte to conserve resources |
| Whether leave to amend would be futile | Russo: should be allowed to amend to state federal claims | District: amendment futile because claims barred by preclusion | Affirmed — futility justified; de novo review supports denial |
| Whether appeals should be in forma pauperis (good-faith) | Russo: appeal in good faith | District: appeal not in good faith given preclusive bar | Affirmed — IFP denied for appeal as not taken in good faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75 (1984) (federal courts must give state-court judgments the same preclusive effect as state law provides)
- McKithen v. Brown, 481 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2007) (New York adopts transactional approach to claim preclusion)
- O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353 (N.Y. 1981) (once a claim is finally decided, all claims from same transaction are barred)
- Davidson v. Capuano, 792 F.2d 275 (2d Cir. 1986) (state proceedings can preclude later federal suits raising the same claims)
- Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (pro se submissions must be construed liberally)