Terry v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11420
2d Cir.2016Background
- Henry R. Terry, proceeding pro se, sued the Incorporated Village of Patchogue, its Board of Trustees, and various individuals alleging wrongful interference with his business interests and an unauthorized police force; the complaint spanned 1,627 paragraphs across 207 pages.
- The District Court (E.D.N.Y.) dismissed Terry’s complaint on September 10, 2014; Terry appealed the dismissal.
- Many of Terry’s claims included an alleged state-law fraud relating to his attempt to purchase the “Weinstein Estate.”
- Terry previously litigated an identical fraud claim in New York state court in 2009; that court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- Terry sought leave to amend while the dismissal was pending, proposing new allegations including national-origin and perceived-disability discrimination; the District Court effectively denied amendment.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and considered whether Terry’s briefing and proposed amendment were adequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fraud claim regarding Weinstein Estate was barred by res judicata | Terry contended the fraud claim should proceed in federal court | Defendants argued the identical claim had been finally dismissed in NY state court, precluding relitigation | Held: Res judicata bars the claim; state-court dismissal for failure to state a claim has preclusive effect |
| Whether dismissal while motion to amend was pending was an abuse of discretion | Terry argued he should have been allowed to amend to add discrimination and other claims | Defendants argued amendment would be futile because the proposed allegations were conclusory | Held: No abuse; leave to amend properly denied as futile given conclusory new allegations |
| Whether procedural defects (venue, judge assignment) invalidated proceedings | Terry claimed case was assigned to wrong courthouse and judge nonrandomly | Defendants argued local division guidelines do not create individual rights and do not provide relief | Held: Claims premised on district guidelines do not confer rights; no relief warranted |
| Whether pro se briefing satisfied Rule 28 and supported appellate review | Terry submitted a principal brief but failed to present identifiable, developed arguments on most claims | Defendants relied on Terry’s deficient briefing and the failure to identify legal arguments | Held: Pro se status does not excuse requirement to present identifiable arguments; many issues inadequately briefed and thus rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 823 F.3d 759 (2d Cir. 2016) (standard of appellate review: de novo review of dismissal)
- EFCO Corp. v. U.W. Marx, Inc., 124 F.3d 394 (2d Cir. 1997) (federal courts must give state-court judgments the preclusive effect they would have in state court)
- Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2000) (leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be futile)
- Fielding v. Tollaksen, 510 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2007) (standards for denying leave to amend and handling pro se pleadings)
- Feigen v. Advance Capital Mgmt. Corp., 146 A.D.2d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989) (dismissal for legal insufficiency can be a disposition on the merits for preclusion)
- Furia v. Furia, 116 A.D.2d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986) (a dismissal for failure to state a claim bars new actions that do not correct defects)
Disposition: The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s September 10, 2014 judgment dismissing Terry’s action.