Singh v. District Council 37, (2nd Cir. 2006) - Case Law - VLEX 25604512

Singh v. District Council 37, (2nd Cir. 2006)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

T H I S SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL

R E P O R T E R AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO

T H I S OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION

O F THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS

C A S E , IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF

C O L L A T E R A L ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.

A t a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

f o r the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

U n i t e d States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

N e w York, on the 11th day of December, two thousand and

six.

P R E S E N T : H O N . DENNIS JACOBS,

C h i e f Judge,

H O N . JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,

H O N . REENA RAGGI,

C i r c u i t Judges,

X

G O K A R A N SINGH,

Plaintiff-appellant,

-v.- N o . 05-2255

D I S T R I C T COUNCIL 37, MELISSA

B R O W N , individually and in her

o f f i c i a l capacity as Attorney for

D C 37, ALLAN BROWN, former

a s s i g n e d DC 37 Attorney,

i n d i v i d u a l l y and in his

o f f i c i a l capacity, JUAN

F E R N A N D E Z , individually and in his

o f f i c i a l capacity, NEW YORK CITY

O F F I C E OF LABOR RELATIONS, JUDE

S Y M A N S K I , DEPARTMENT OF DESIGN &

CONSTRUCTION, MARTIN ELLENBERG, P O O R A N SOOKCHAN, Office Manager, R O B E R T MATTI, Director of Internal A u d i t , GLORIA PARKER, Director of E q u a l Employment Opportunity, M A R T H A BECHTOLD, Director of E m p l o y e e Relations, PATRICK L A R K I N , P.E., Deputy Director, D O N A L D GRANGER, P.E., Borough D i r e c t o r , THOMAS WYNNE, P.E., F o r m e r Borough Director, JEFF B O N N E , Deputy Commissioner of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , JOHN PUSZ, A s s i s t a n t Commissioner, KENNETH R.

H O L D E N , Former Commissioner, New Y o r k City, Defendants-appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X A P P E A R I N G FOR APPELLANT: G O K A R A N SINGH, pro se, New Y o r k , New York.

A p p e a l from the United States District Court for t h e Eastern District of New York (Garaufis, J.).

U P O N DUE CONSIDERATION, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, A N D DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

G o k a r a n Singh, pro se, appeals from the February 2 3 , 2005 judgment of the United States District Court f o r the Eastern District of New York (Garaufis, J.) d i s m i s s i n g Singh's complaint, filed in forma pauperis, p u r s u a n t to 28U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and c e r t i f y i n g that any appeal would not be taken in good f a i t h pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). We assume t h e parties' familiarity with the facts, procedural b a c k g r o u n d and issues presented for review.

T h i s court reviews de novo the dismissal of a c o m p l a i n t for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U . S . C . § 1915(e). See Mojias v. Johnson, 351 F.3d 6 0 6 , 609 (2d Cir. 2003).

( 1 ) Singh's claim under 42U.S.C. § 2000(e) was p r o p e r l y dismissed for failure to exhaust a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedies. See Legnani v. Alitalia L i n e e Aeree Italiane, S.P.A., 274 F.3d 683, 686 (2d C i r . 2001) (per curiam).

( 2 ) Singh's due process claim was properly d i s m i s s e d because he failed to allege a deprivation of a cognizable property interest: his interest in o b t a i n i n g other employment positions within the D e p a r t m e n t of Design & Construction and his desire for a n exceptional performance evaluation are "abstract n e e d [ s ] , desire[s] or unilateral expectation[s]" and d o not suffice. See Abramson v. Pataki, 278 F.3d 93, 9 9 (2d Cir. 2002).

( 3 ) Singh's equal protection claim was properly d i s m i s s e d because his allegation of invidious d i s c r i m i n a t i o n is conclusory. See Albert v. Carovano, 8 5 1 F.2d 561, 572 (2d Cir. 1988) (in banc).

( 4 ) On appeal, Singh raises new claims, including b r e a c h of contract, violation of the Sixth and Ninth A m e n d m e n t s , and deprivation of the right to represent o n e s e l f at an arbitration hearing held pursuant the E q u a l Pay Act, 29U.S.C. § 206(d). As a general rule, " f e d e r a l appeals courts do not consider arguments r a i s e d for the first time on appeal." Gulino v. N.Y.

S t a t e Educ. Dep't, 460 F.3d 361, 380 n.22 (2d Cir.

2 0 0 6 ) (citation omitted).

W e have considered all of Singh's remaining a r g u m e n t s and find them to be without merit. For the f o r e g o i n g reasons, the judgment of the district court i s affirmed.

F O R THE COURT: T H O M A S W. ASREEN, ACTING CLERK By: L u c i l l e Carr, Deputy Clerk