Case Information
*1 ‐ ‐ cv Cuomo UNITED STATES APPEALS SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY IS PERMITTED AND GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 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 FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At stated term United States Appeals Second Circuit, held Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, City nd day October, two thousand seventeen.
PRESENT: RAYMOND LOHIER, JR.,
CHRISTOPHER DRONEY,
Circuit Judges,
JED S. RAKOFF, Judge. *
DEBORAH LAMB, MECCA, PRO SE
AS SOVERIGN PEOPLE UNITED
STATES,
Plaintiffs ‐ No. ‐ cv
ANDREW CUOMO, GOVERNOR
N.Y.S., HOWARD ZUCKER, ERIC * Jed S. Rakoff, Southern sitting by designation. *2 SCHNEIDERMAN, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOR N.Y.S, JANET DIFIORE, THE CHIEF JUDGE THE HEAD THE NEW YORK STATE SYSTEM, COUNTY SUFFOLK, THE MUNICIPALITY, STEVE BELLONE, THE
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE, THOMAS
SPOTA, THE SUFFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, ANN MARIE CSORNY, THE
ACTING DIRECTOR SUFFOLK COUNTY
MENTAL HYGIENE, DR. JAMES L.
TOMARKEN, SUFFOLK COUNTY
COMMISSIONER HEALTH, JOHN
F. O’NEILL, SUFFOLK COUNTY
COMMISSIONER SUFFOLK COUNTY
SOCIAL SERVICES, TIMOTHY D. SINI,
SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE COMMISSIONER,
VINCENT DEMARCO, SUFFOLK
COUNTY SHERIFF, JUDITH A. PASCALE,
SUFFOLK CLERK, ANN MARIE
SULLIVAN, MENTAL
Defendants Appellees , DOE(S), #1–20,
Defendants . APPELLANTS: D EBORAH L AMB , ,
Kings Park, NY. STATE S COTT E ISMAN (Barbara D. Underwood,
Solicitor General, Steven C. Wu, Deputy Solicitor General, David Lawrence III, Solicitor General, brief ), Eric Schneiderman, Attorney General State *3 Christopher Jeffreys, County Attorney, for
Dennis Brown, Suffolk County Attorney, Hauppauge, Appeal from a judgment of the District Court for the Eastern York (Joanna Seybert, ). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECREED the judgment is AFFIRMED. Deborah and proceeding se, appeal from a judgment (Seybert, J.) sua sponte dismissing suit brought under U.S.C. § We assume parties’ familiarity record prior proceedings, refer only as explain our decision affirm.
We yet addressed review de novo abuse discretion district court’s sua sponte a frivolousness where litigant has paid filing fee. Fitzgerald First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., & n.2 need reach issue here because decision “easily passes muster under more rigorous de novo review.” Id. n.2. claim frivolous “where *4 lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). courts should generally not dismiss complaint without permitting at least one opportunity to amend, but granting leave to amend when would be futile. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, (2d Cir.
Upon review, find no error Court’s appellants’ because, even when read “special solicitude” due pleadings, Triestman Fed. Bureau Prisons, F.3d 471, 2006), allegations “rise level irrational or wholly incredible, there are judicially noticeable facts available contradict them,” Denton Hernandez, U.S. (1992). And given wholly incredible nature alleged upon appellants’ claims are based, reasonably concluded granting leave amend would be futile. See Cuoco,
considered appellants’ remaining arguments conclude they are without merit. Accordingly, AFFIRM judgment. COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk