19-2727 Rodrigues v. Family Justice Centers 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 TO 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, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 3rd day of November, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ NATALIE RODRIGUES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 19-2727 CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee. 1 _____________________________________ For Plaintiff-Appellant: NATALIE RODRIGUES, pro se, Great Neck, NY. For Defendant-Appellee: ANTONELLA KARLIN, Assistant Corporation Counsel (MacKenzie Fillow, on the brief), for James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY. 1 The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption accordingly. 1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Oetken, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-appellant Natalie Rodrigues, pro se, brought this action against Family Justice Centers (“FJCs”) in Queens and Manhattan, alleging discrimination, violation of equal protection rights, violation of substantive due process rights, infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy to violate civil rights, violation of free speech rights, and fraud—all on the basis that FJCs in Queens and Manhattan failed to provide her with services that she requested. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, but permitted Rodrigues to amend her complaint. When she did not, the district court entered a judgment against her, from which she appealed. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal. Rodrigues has included a proposed amended complaint in her appellate appendix and argues that we should consider the new allegations therein. We generally do not consider claims or issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Harrison v. Republic of Sudan, 838 F.3d 86, 96 (2d Cir. 2016). Rodrigues asserts that we should do so here, because she did not know that she could seek from the district court an extension of time to file her amended complaint after the deadline set by the district court had expired. However, the district court had already granted her one extension, and Rodrigues does not explain why she believed that another extension was impossible. Furthermore, even pro se litigants are not “exempt . . . from compliance ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals