14‐1398 Catalino Espinosa v. McCabe, et al.

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 ASUMMARY 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 19th day of May, two thousand fifteen.

PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________

CATALINO ESPINOSA,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v. No. 14‐1398

McCABE, Sergeant at Bare Hill Correctional Facility, ARQUETTE, Officer at Bare Hill Correctional Facility, LEON CARTER, Correction Officer, AKA Canton, 1 SOUTHWORTH, Officer at Bare Hill Correctional Facility, EDWARD HUGABOOM, Nurse at Bare Hill Correctional Facility, JORGE L. SERRANO, Counselor at Bare Hill Correctional Facility,

Defendants‐Appellees.* _____________________________________

For Plaintiff‐Appellant: Catalino Espinosa, pro se, Attica, NY.

For Defendants‐Appellees: Andrew B. Ayers, Assistant Solicitor General (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Paul Groenwegen Assistant Solicitor General, on the brief), for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, Albany, NY.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (D’Agostino, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the appeal is HELD IN ABEYANCE.

Plaintiff‐Appellant Catalino Espinosa, proceeding pro se, appeals the

district court’s judgment in favor of the Defendants‐Appellees on his

claims for excessive force and deliberate indifference following a jury

* The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption as above. 2 verdict. He has filed a brief on appeal that contains no information about his

case or this appeal.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a) “requires appellants in their

briefs to provide the court with a clear statement of the issues on appeal.” Moates

v. Barkley,

(2d Cir. 1998). This Court “normally will not[] decide

issues that a party fails to raise in his or her appellate brief,” even for pro se

litigants.

Espinosa’s brief, even liberally construed, identifies no issues for

this Court to examine on appeal. Although the statement in his brief that he

seeks remand for a fair and impartial trial suggests that he wishes to challenge the

jury verdict, he has raised no specific challenge to the jury trial. Moreover,

because Espinosa has not provided transcripts of the trial proceedings, we lack

the ability to conduct meaningful appellate review of the jury trial. Wrighten v.

Glowski,

(2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam).

Within thirty days of the date of this order, Espinosa is required to submit

an additional letter brief explaining what issues he raises on appeal and the exact

nature of those challenges. To the extent that Espinosa raises issues that would

require an examination of the trial transcript, he must also provide the necessary

3 transcripts in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b). Fed.

R. App. P. 10(b)(1)(A), (B) (explaining that it is the appellant’s duty to “order from

the reporter a transcript of such parts of the proceedings not already on file as the

appellant considers necessary . . . ; or [] file a certificate stating that no transcript

will be ordered”). If Espinosa wishes to seek free transcripts, he must first move

in the district court and demonstrate financial need and that his appeal is “not

frivolous (but presents a substantial question).”

(f).

Accordingly, we hold the appeal in ABEYANCE until Espinosa submits a

letter brief identifying his issues on appeal within thirty days of this order.

Should Espinosa wish to raise issues requiring trial transcripts, he must also

submit either the transcripts, or proof that he has sought free transcripts from the

district court, at the same time that he submits his letter brief.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

4