Maltese v. Governor of NYS

24-2378-cv Maltese v. Governor of NYS 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 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 6th day of January, two thousand twenty-six.

Present: WILLIAM J. NARDINI, STEVEN J. MENASHI, EUNICE C. LEE, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ MARYANN MALTESE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 24-2378 GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK STATE, NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, NEW YORK STATE SENATOR MARIO MATTERA, NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLYMAN KEITH BROWN, Defendants-Appellees. _____________________________________

For Plaintiff-Appellant: MARYANN MALTESE, pro se, East Northport, NY For Defendants-Appellees: KARTIK NARAM, Assistant Solicitor General, Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Mark S. Grube, Senior Assistant Solicitor General, for Letitia James, Attorney General for the State of New York, New York, NY

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Rachel P. Kovner, District Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

In three appeals being heard in tandem, Plaintiff Maryann Maltese, proceeding pro se, appeals from the dismissals of her complaints against various New York State officials and agencies (“State Defendants”) in “Maltese I” and “Maltese III” and New York City officials and agencies (“City Defendants”) in “Maltese II.” The district court dismissed the claims against the State Defendants in Maltese I and III as barred by state sovereign immunity or otherwise for failure to state a claim, and the claims against the City Defendants in Maltese II for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Maltese v. Brown, Nos. 23-CV-4566 (RPK) (LB), 23-CV-4940 (RPK) (LB), & 23-CV-6204 (RPK) (LB), 2024 WL 3875940 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2024). For the reasons stated in our summary order in Maltese v. Brown, 2d Cir. 24-2393, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

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