Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App'x 1 (2d Cir. 2017). · Go Syfert
Search
Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App'x 1 (2d Cir. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 14× by 14 distinct cases→ Stable · …a claim is frivolous 'where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. at p. 2 ✓ Topic ↗
cited 8× by 8 distinct cases, 2020–2024 · …district courts should generally not dismiss a pro se complaint without permitting at least one opportunity to amend, but granting leave to amend is not necessary when it would be futile. at p. 2 ✓ Topic ↗
42 citation events (42 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Toussaint v. Home Depot (nyed, 2023-06-02)
Treatment trajectory · 2020 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2020 2023 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 36 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Toussaint v. Home Depot
E.D.N.Y · 2023 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a claim is frivolous 'where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Toussaint v. Apple Inc.
E.D.N.Y · 2023 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a claim is frivolous 'where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Toussaint v. Lyft
E.D.N.Y · 2023 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a claim is frivolous 'where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Weir v. City of New York (2×)
E.D.N.Y · 2022 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
given the wholly incredible nature of the alleged facts upon which appellants' claims are based, the district court reasonably concluded that granting leave to amend would be futile.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) PLOURDE v. CEJKA
D. Me. · 2020 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
given the wholly incredible nature of the alleged facts upon which appellants' claims are based, the district court reasonably concluded that granting leave to amend would be futile
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) PLOURDE v. REDINGTON-FAIRVIEW HOSPITAL
D. Me. · 2020 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
given the wholly incredible nature of the alleged facts upon which appellants' claims are based, the district court reasonably concluded that granting leave to amend would be futile
cited Cited as authority (rule) Joseph Romain and Marie R. Romain v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, et al.
E.D.N.Y · 2026 · confidence medium
Jan. 10, 2023) (quoting Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Capuano v. Donnelly
E.D.N.Y · 2025 · confidence medium
Jan. 10, 2023) (quoting Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Capuano v. Dunst
E.D.N.Y · 2025 · confidence medium
Jan. 10, 2023) (quoting Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hart v. Suffolk County
E.D.N.Y · 2025 · confidence medium
Jan. 10, 2023) (quoting Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ouaziz v. Clarke
E.D.N.Y · 2025 · confidence medium
P. 8(a) (providing in relevant part that “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (“A claim is frivolous ‘where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989))).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Johnson
N.D.N.Y. · 2024 · confidence medium
The plaintiff is also cautioned that he must allege 633 (2d Cir. 2016); Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App'x 1, 2 (2d facts that are personal to him.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Razzoli v. Richmond University Medical Center
E.D.N.Y · 2024 · confidence medium
See Terry v. Inc. Vill. of Patchogue, 826 F.3d 631, 633 (2d Cir. 2016); Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Razzoli v. Richmond University Medical Center
E.D.N.Y · 2023 · confidence medium
The Court declines to grant the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint as to (i) the medical malpractice/negligence claims, (ii) the civil rights claims, (iii) the torture claims, and (iv) the Privacy Act claims because “amendment would be futile.” Terry v. Inc. Vill. of Patchogue, 826 F.3d 631, 633 (2d Cir. 2016); Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gross v. Intratek Computer Inc.
E.D.N.Y · 2023 · confidence medium
Leave to Amend The Second Circuit has held that “[d]istrict courts should generally not dismiss a pro se complaint without permitting at least one opportunity to amend, but granting leave to amend is not necessary when it would be futile.” Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (citing Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chambers v. Toulon
E.D.N.Y · 2022 · confidence medium
Leave to Amend The Second Circuit has held that “[d]istrict courts should generally not dismiss a pro se complaint without permitting at least one opportunity to amend, but granting leave to amend is not necessary when it would be futile.” Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (citing Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Oliver v. Punter
E.D.N.Y · 2022 · confidence medium
Nov. 7, 2014), aff’d, 645 F. App’x 103 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Courts have repeatedly invoked the [Rooker-Feldman] doctrine in cases, like the one currently before the Court, in which plaintiffs challenge family court decrees setting child support arrears.”) (collecting cases). 6 granting leave to amend is not necessary when it would be futile.” Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (citing Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hall v. Salaway (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
E.D.N.Y · 2021 · confidence medium
The Second Circuit has held that “[d]istrict courts should generally not dismiss a pro se complaint without permitting at least one opportunity to amend, but granting leave to amend is not necessary when it would be futile.” Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (citing Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)); see also Shipman v. Charles Schwab & Co., No. 14-CV-4568 (ENV)(LB), 2016 WL 11472831 , at *7 (E.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ates v. United States
E.D.N.Y · 2020 · confidence medium
Plaintiff is not Entitled to Leave to Amend The Second Circuit has cautioned that “[d]istrict courts should generally not dismiss a pro se complaint without permitting at least one opportunity to amend, but granting leave to amend is not necessary when it would be futile.” Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) (citing Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)); see also Shipman v. Charles Schwab & Co., No. 14-CV-4568, 2016 WL 11472831 , at *7 (E.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Trotman v. Doe (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
E.D.N.Y · 2020 · confidence medium
The Second Circuit has held that “[d]istrict courts should generally not dismiss a pro se complaint without permitting at least one opportunity to amend, but granting leave to amend is not necessary when it would be futile.” Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (citing Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)); see also Shipman v. Charles Schwab & Co., No. 14-CV-4568 (ENV)(LB), 2016 WL 11472831 , at *7 (E.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Trotman Junior v. Herod (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
E.D.N.Y · 2020 · confidence medium
The Second Circuit has held that “[d]istrict courts should generally not dismiss a pro se complaint without permitting at least one opportunity to amend, but granting leave to amend is not necessary when it would be futile.” Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (citing Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)); see also Shipman v. Charles Schwab & Co., No. 14-CV-4568 (ENV)(LB), 2016 WL 11472831 , at *7 (E.D.N.Y.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Armstrong v. Sylvestre (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
E.D.N.Y · 2020 · confidence medium
The Second Circuit has held that “[d]istrict courts should generally not dismiss a pro se complaint without permitting at least one opportunity to amend, but granting leave to amend is not necessary when it would be futile.” Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (citing Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)); see also Shipman v. Charles Schwab & Co., No. 14-CV-4568 (ENV)(LB), 2016 WL 11472831 , at *7 (E.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited "see" Genao v. Ruiz
S.D.N.Y. · 2025 · signal: accord · confidence high
Leave to Amend Although district courts should generally grant a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint, “leave to amend need not be granted when amendment would be futile.” Terry v. Inc. Vill. of Patchogue, 826 F.3d 631, 633 (2d Cir. 2016); accord Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017).
discussed Cited "see" Calderon Ortiz v. Pace University
S.D.N.Y. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 48 (2d Cir. 1991) (citations omitted); see Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) (“District courts should generally not dismiss a pro se complaint without permitting at least one opportunity to amend.”).
discussed Cited "see" Toussaint v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence
E.D.N.Y · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (“A claim is frivolous ‘where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989))); Hakaniemi v. Zuckerberg, No. 21- CV-04345, 2021 WL 3566221 , at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited "see" Toussaint v. Port Authority of New York And New Jersey
E.D.N.Y · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (“A claim is frivolous ‘where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989))); Hakaniemi v. Zuckerberg, No. 21- CV-04345, 2021 WL 3566221 , at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited "see" Toussaint v. Jetblue
E.D.N.Y · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (“A claim is frivolous ‘where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989))); Hakaniemi v. Zuckerberg, No. 21- CV-04345, 2021 WL 3566221 , at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited "see" Adlitem Protetor Toussaint v. Consumer Financial Bureau
E.D.N.Y · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (“A claim is frivolous ‘where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989))); Hakaniemi v. Zuckerberg, No. 21- CV-04345, 2021 WL 3566221 , at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited "see" Micah v. TD Bank NA
E.D.N.Y · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (“A claim is frivolous ‘where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989))); Hakaniemi v. Zuckerberg, No. 21- CV-04345, 2021 WL 3566221 , at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited "see" Toussaint v. Verizon
E.D.N.Y · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (“A claim is frivolous ‘where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989))); Hakaniemi v. Zuckerberg, No. 21- CV-04345, 2021 WL 3566221 , at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited "see" Toussaint v. Pearl Asset LLC
E.D.N.Y · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (“A claim is frivolous ‘where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989))); Hakaniemi v. Zuckerberg, No. 21- CV-04345, 2021 WL 3566221 , at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited "see" Toussaint v. Verizon
E.D.N.Y · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (“A claim is frivolous ‘where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989))); Hakaniemi v. Zuckerberg, No. 21- CV-04345, 2021 WL 3566221 , at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited "see" Toussaint v. Office of the Attorney General of the State of York
E.D.N.Y · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (“A claim is frivolous ‘where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989))); Hakaniemi v. Zuckerberg, No. 21- CV-04345, 2021 WL 3566221 , at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited "see" Toussaint v. Obama
E.D.N.Y · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (“A claim is frivolous ‘where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989))); Hakaniemi v. Zuckerberg, No. 21- CV-04345, 2021 WL 3566221 , at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited "see" Toussaint v. Food and Drug Administration
E.D.N.Y · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (“A claim is frivolous ‘where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989))); Hakaniemi v. Zuckerberg, No. 21- CV-04345, 2021 WL 3566221 , at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Brik v. Brodie
E.D.N.Y · 2024 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Lamb v. Cuomo, 698 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) (“District courts should generally not dismiss a pro se complaint without permitting at least one opportunity to amend, but granting leave to amend is not necessary when it would be futile.” (citing Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000))).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Deborah LAMB, John Mecca, Pro Se as Soverign People of the United States
v.
Andrew M. CUOMO, The Governor for N.Y.S., Howard A. Zucker, The Public Health Commissioner for N.Y.S., Eric T. Schneiderman, The Attorney General for N.Y.S, Janet Difiore, The Chief Judge and The Head of the New York State Court System, County of Suffolk, The Municipality, Steve Bellone, The Suffolk County Executive, Thomas J. Spota, The Suffolk County District Attorney, Ann Marie Csorny, The Acting Director Suffolk County Mental Hygiene, Dr. James L. Tomarken, The Suffolk County Commissioner of Public Health, John F. O'Neill, The Suffolk County Commissioner of Suffolk County Social Services, Timothy D. Sini, The Suffolk County Police Commissioner, Vincent F. Demarco, The Suffolk County Sheriff, Judith A. Pascale, The Suffolk County Clerk, Ann Marie Sullivan, The Mental Health Commissioner for N.Y.S., John Doe(s), 1-20
No. 17-144-cv.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Oct 2, 2017.
698 F. App'x 1
FOR APPELLANTS: Deborah Lamb, pro se, John Mecca, pro se, Kings Park, NY., FOR STATE APPELLEES: Scott A. Eisman (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Steven C. Wu, Deputy Solicitor General, David Lawrence III, Assistant Solicitor General, on the brief), for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General for the State of New York, New York, NY., FOR COUNTY APPELLEES: Christopher A. Jeffreys, Assistant County' Attorney, for Dennis M. Brown, Suffolk County Attorney, Hauppauge, NY.
Droney, Lohier, Rakoff.
Cited by 35 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 68%
Citer courts: D. Maine (1)

[*2] SUMMARY ORDER

Appellants Deborah Lamb and John Mecca, proceeding pro se, appeal from a judgment of the District Court (Seybert, J.) sua sponte dismissing their suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of the prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

We have not yet addressed whether we review de novo or for abuse of discretion a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a complaint for frivolousness where the litigant has paid the filing fee. Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 & n.2 (2d Cir. 2000). We need not reach that issue here because the District Court’s decision “easily passes muster under the more rigorous de novo review.” Id, at 364 n.2. A claim is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). District courts should generally not dismiss a pip se complaint without permitting at least one opportunity to amend, but granting leave to amend is not necessary when it would be futile. See Cuoco v, Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000).

Upon review, we find no error in the District Court’s dismissal of appellants’ complaint because, even when read with the “special solicitude” due pro se pleadings, Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir. 2006), their allégations “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them,” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992). And given the wholly incredible nature of the alleged facts upon which appellants’ claims are based, the District Court reasonably concluded that granting leave to amend would be futile. See Cuoco, 222 F.3d at 112.

We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the District Court’s judgment.