Jeanty v. Viruet

── Jeanty v. Viruet ── Case No.: 24-2447 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 01, 2026 Category: General 24-2447-cv Jeanty v. Viruet 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 1st day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., STEVEN J. MENASHI, SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, Circuit Judges. ------------------------------------------------------------------ VLADIMIR JEANTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 24-2447-cv POLICE OFFICER NICHOLAS VIRUET, BADGE #31374, POLICE OFFICER JUNSUN PARK, SHIELD #28223, CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants-Appellees. * ------------------------------------------------------------------ * The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 1  FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: VLADIMIR JEANTY, pro se, Arverne, NY FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: JENNIFER LERNER (Melanie T. West, on the brief), of Counsel, for Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Orelia E. Merchant, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Vladimir Jeanty, representing himself, appeals from the August 19, 2024 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Merchant, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of Officer Nicholas Viruet, Officer Junsun Park, and the City of New York and dismissing Mr. Jeanty’s claims for, among other things, false arrest and malicious prosecution brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On appeal, Mr. Jeanty argues that the District Court erred in concluding that Officers Viruet and Park were entitled to qualified immunity because they had arguable probable cause to arrest him. Mr. Jeanty also challenges the District Court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. 2 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. We “review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo” and affirm only if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Walker v. Senecal, 130 F.4th 291, 297 (2d Cir. 2025) (quotation marks omitted). “We liberally construe pleadings and briefs submitted by pro se litigants, reading such submissions to raise the strongest arguments they suggest.” Kravi