Peterkin v. Div. of Licensing Servs.

── Peterkin v. Div. of Licensing Servs. ── Case No.: 25-1331-cv Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 16, 2026 Category: General 25-1331-cv Peterkin v. Div. of Licensing Servs. 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 16th day of March, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, MICHAEL H. PARK, SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ Meuris Peterkin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 25-1331 Division of Licensing Services, Department of State Licensing, Defendants-Appellees. _____________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Meuris Peterkin, pro se, Brooklyn, NY. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: No appearance. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (DeArcy Hall, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Meuris Peterkin, who proceeds pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment sua sponte dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice. Peterkin alleged that the New York Department of State’s Division of Licensing Services violated his right to equal protection by delaying the renewal of his unarmed security guard license. The district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), 1 concluding that it was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, and that, in any event, Peterkin did not plausibly allege a constitutional violation. Peterkin, 2025 WL 1191689, at *3. It also denied leave to amend as futile. Id. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 1 The district court granted Peterkin in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status before dismissing his complaint. See Peterkin v. Div. of Licensing Servs., No. 24-cv-3261(LDH), 2025 WL 1191689, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2025). 2  “We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).” Milan v. Wertheimer, 808 F.3d 961, 963 (2d Cir. 2015). When “a district court’s denial of leave to amend . . . was based on an interpretation of law, such as futility,” we “review the legal conclusion de novo.” Panther Partners Inc. v. Ikanos Commc’ns, Inc., 681 F.3d 114, 119 (2d Cir. 2012). Because Peterkin “has been pro se throughout, his pleadings and other filings are interpreted to raise the strongest claims they suggest.” Sharikov v. Philips Med. Sys. MR, Inc., 103 F.4th 159, 166 (2d Cir. 2024). “Because state sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional limitation on the power of federal courts, . . . [it] raises a threshold question that must be resolved before proceeding to the merits.” Baroni v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 161 F.4th 48, 54 (2d Cir. 2