UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
T H I S SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL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
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,
G O K A R A N SINGH,
-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
( 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
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - Judith Abramson Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. George E. Pataki, Individually and in His Capacity as the Governor of the State of New York and William L. Mack, Individually and in His Capacity as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the New York Convention Center Operating Corporation, Defendants, New York Convention Center Operating Corporation; Robert E. Boyle, Individually and in His Capacities as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the New York Convention Center Operating Corporation and a Special Assistant To the Governor of the State of New York, Defendants-Appellees., 278 F.3d 93 (2nd Cir. 2002)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - Josefina Legnani, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane, S.P.A., Defendant-Appellant, 274 F.3d 683 (2nd Cir. 2001)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - Elsa Gulino, Mayling Ralph and Peter Wilds, on Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Nia Greene, Plaintiff, v. New York State Education Department, Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellee, Board of Education of the New York City School District of the City of New York, Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Appellee. Docket No. 03-9062-Cv., 460 F.3d 361 (2nd Cir. 2006)
See other documents that cite the same legislation