Terry v. Inc. Vill. of Patchogue, 826 F.3d 631

Henry R. Terry (pro se) sued the Incorporated Village of Patchogue, its Board of Trustees, and multiple officials, alleging wrongful interference with his business interests and that the Village maintained an unauthorized police force.
The allegations spanned more than a decade and were pleaded in an extremely long, prolix complaint (1,627 paragraphs, 207 pages).
The Eastern District of New York dismissed Terry’s complaint on September 10, 2014; Terry appealed.
Key asserted claims included state-law fraud (e.g., regarding the “Weinstein Estate”), and later-contemplated claims of discrimination (national origin and perceived disability).
The District Court dismissed for failure to state a claim and implicitly denied leave to amend as futile; it also rejected procedural challenges about courthouse assignment and judge selection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fraud claim regarding Weinstein Estate was actionable	Terry contends Village fraudulently cited his properties and interfered with his property/political rights	Defendants argue claim is precluded by prior New York State-court dismissal and legally insufficient	Affirmed: claim barred by res judicata; prior NY dismissal had preclusive effect
Whether denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion	Terry sought to add discrimination claims (national origin, perceived disability) and other allegations	Defendants argued proposed amendments were conclusory and futile	Affirmed: amendment would be futile; dismissal without leave was not an abuse
Whether procedural assignment/venue violations warrant relief	Terry alleged improper courthouse assignment and nonrandom judge assignment under E.D.N.Y. guidelines	Defendants: Guidelines do not create private rights or entitlement to relief	Affirmed: Guidelines don’t vest rights in litigants; no relief warranted
Whether complaint otherwise stated viable federal claims (e.g., challenge to police force)	Terry raised broad claims about unauthorized police force and other misconduct	Defendants: pleadings were conclusory and legally insufficient	Affirmed: complaint failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted

Barani v. Department of Defense, [citation="518 F. App'x 48"] (2d Cir.) (leave to amend/futility standard)
Fielding v. Tollaksen, 510 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2007) (review of denial of amendment for futility)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2000) (pro se amendments need not be permitted when futile)
EFCO Corp. v. U.W. Marx, Inc., 124 F.3d 394 (2d Cir. 1997) (preclusive effect of state-court judgments)
Donofrio v. City of New York, [citation="563 F. App'x 92"] (2d Cir.) (pro se briefing obligations)
LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1995) (requirement for identifiable arguments in briefs)
United States v. Schlesinger, [citation="261 F. App'x 355"] (2d Cir.) (court guidelines do not create enforceable rights)