Kurmangaliyev v. City of New York

── Kurmangaliyev v. City of New York ── Case No.: 25-1412 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 01, 2026 Category: General 25-1412-cv Kurmangaliyev v. City of New York 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: DENNY CHIN, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. ------------------------------------------------------------------ SAIT ANVARBEKOVICH KURMANGALIYEV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 25-1412-cv CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, OFFICE OF THE SHERRIFF OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, QUEENS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, QUEENS COUNTY DEPUTY SHERRIF MARZAN, JOHN DOE SHERIFF DEPUTY #1, JOHN DOE SHERIFF DEPUTY #2,  JOHN DOE SHERIFF DEPUTY # 3, JOHN DOE SHERIFF DEPUTY # 4, JOHN DOE SHERIFF DEPUTY # 5, (QUEENS COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTIES), Defendants-Appellees. ------------------------------------------------------------------ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: SAIT ANVARBEKOVICH KURMANGALIYEV, pro se, Brooklyn, NY FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: MACKENZIE FILLOW (Deborah A. Brenner, 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 (LaShann DeArcy Hall, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED as MODIFIED. Sait Anvarbekovich Kurmangaliyev, representing himself, appeals from the June 2, 2025 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (DeArcy Hall, J.) dismissing his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution and violations of his rights under the Fourth 2 and Fourteenth Amendments and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. 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 de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure], construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Romanova v. Amilus Inc., 138 F.4th 104, 108 (2d Cir. 2025) (quotation marks omitt