23-496-cv Cassidy v. New York State Insurance Fund

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 20th day of December, two thousand twenty-three.

PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, ALISON J. NATHAN, SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________

Robert Craig Cassidy,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 23-496-cv v.

New York State Insurance Fund, New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York, Brian M. Matula, Joseph Slater, Personally, Kelsey Lynn Raga, Personally, Freida Foster, Member of the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, Personally, Ellen O. Paprocki, Member of the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, Personally, Linda Hull, Member of the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, Personally, Frederick M. Ausill, Member of the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, Personally, Loren Lobban, Member of the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, Personally, Steven A. Crain, Member of the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, Personally, Mark R. Stasko, Member of the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, Personally, Samual G. Williams, Member of the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, Personally, Mark Higgins, Member of the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, Personally, Darlene Dorsett, Personally, 1

Defendants-Appellees. _____________________________________

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: ROBERT CRAIG CASSIDY, pro se, Rutland, VT.

1 The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption of the case as set forth above. 2 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: ALEXANDRIA TWINEM, Assistant Solicitor General (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Andrea Oser, Deputy Solicitor General, on the brief), for Letitia James, Attorney General for the State of New York, Albany, NY.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern

District of New York (Suddaby, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the March 7, 2023, judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.

Robert Cassidy, proceeding pro se, appeals a judgment granting the State

Defendants’ motion to dismiss his civil rights complaint. We assume the parties’

familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which

we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

The underlying lawsuit is Cassidy’s second attempt in federal court to

challenge a penalty imposed on him by the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB).

3 He sued the WCB, the New York State Insurance Fund (NYSIF), the Attorney

General of New York, and various individual Defendants under

,

raising claims under the Constitution’s Bill of Attainder and Contracts Clauses.

The district court dismissed the complaint as barred by Eleventh Amendment

immunity and the statute of limitations, and because Cassidy otherwise failed to

state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Cassidy v. N.Y. State Ins.

Fund, No. 21-cv-0521,

, at *5–10 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2023). Cassidy

appealed.

We review pro se submissions with “special solicitude,” liberally construing

them “to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Triestman v. Fed.

Bureau of Prisons,

(2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (cleaned up).

However, pro se appellants must still comply with Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 28(a), which requires them “to provide the court with a clear statement

of the issues on appeal” in their briefs. Moates v. Barkley,

(2d Cir.

1998) (per curiam). Therefore, we normally will not “decide issues that a party

fails to raise in his . . . appellate brief.” Id.; see also Norton v. Sam’s Club,

(2d Cir. 1998) (“Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered 4 waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal.”).

Although Cassidy’s briefing is replete with accusations against Defendants

and the court, he fails to challenge the basis for the underlying judgment in this

appeal. Nowhere in his briefing does Cassidy explain how the district court erred

in granting the motion to dismiss because he failed to state claims under the Bill

of Attainder and Contracts Clauses. Instead, he raises arguments challenging this

Court’s affirmance of the district court’s judgment from his prior appeal. See

Cassidy v. Rodriguez, No. 21-2657,

(2d Cir. Jan. 26, 2023). For that

reason, Cassidy has failed to comply with Rule 28(a) and has abandoned his

claims. We affirm on this basis. Even if Cassidy had not abandoned his

arguments, we would affirm the dismissal on the merits for substantially the same

reasons set forth in the district court’s opinion.

5 We have considered Cassidy’s remaining arguments and find them to be without

merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

6