Case Information
*1 17-296-cv McDonough v. Smith
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, at 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 6 th day of November, two thousand nineteen.
PRESENT: D ENNIS J ACOBS ,
R EENA R AGGI ,
C HRISTOPHER F. D RONEY ,
Circuit Judges .
________________________________________________
E DWARD G. M C D ONOUGH ,
Plaintiff-Appellant , v. No. 17-296-cv Y OUEL S MITH , INDIVIDUALLY AND AS S PECIAL
D ISTRICT A TTORNEY FOR THE C OUNTY OF
R ENSSELAER , N EW Y ORK , AKA T REY S MITH ,
Defendant-Appellee ,
J OHN J. O GDEN , R ICHARD M C N ALLY J R ., K EVIN
M C G RATH , A LAN R OBILLARD , C OUNTY OF
R ENSSELAER , J OHN F. B ROWN , W ILLIAM A.
M C I NERNEY , K EVIN F. O’M ALLEY , D ANIEL B.
B ROWN , A NTHONY J. R ENNA ,
Defendants.
_______________________________________________
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: B RIAN D. P REMO , Premo Law Firm
PLLC, Albany, NY. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: T HOMAS J. O’C ONNOR , Napierski,
VanDenburgh, Napierski & O’Connor, LLP, Albany, NY.
On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be VACATED and the cause be REMANDED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States.
This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court, which reversed our decision in McDonough v. Smith , 898 F.3d 259 (2d Cir. 2018), and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. See McDonough v. Smith , 139 S. Ct. 2149, 204 L. Ed. 2d 506 (2019).
We now VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. [1]
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O = Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
[1] We express no view as to whether Smith has waived or forfeited the argument that absolute immunity bars McDonough’s fabricated-evidence claim. See Brown v. City of New York , 862 F.3d 182, 187-88 (2d Cir. 2017). 2