
    William Howard DORISS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN, State of Connecticut, Crisco, Officer, New Haven Police Dept., I/O, J. Naccarato, Ofcr. N.H.P.D., Andie Diaz, Ofcr. N.H.P.D., Martinez, Ofcr. N.H.P.D., John Smith, Lt. N.H.P.D., Craig Alston, Ofcr. N.H.P.D., Holly Miller, Ofcr. N.H.P.D., Wearing, Chief, N.H.P.D., Reginald Thomas, Civilian Review Board, John Destefano, Mayor, City of NH, Elizabeth Bodine, Asst. State’s Atty., Superior Court, GA, Maura K. Coyne, Asst. State’s Atty., Superior Court, GA, Joan Alexander, Judge, Superior Court, GA, Frank Ionotti, Judge, Superior Court, GA, Bernadette Conway, Judge, Superior Court, GA, Marjorie Dauster, Senior Asst. State’s Attorney, Michael Dearington, Senior State’s Atty., NH Judicial District, Dranginis, Justice, Appellate Court, Flynn, Justice, Appellate Court, Margaret Flynn, Staff Atty., Habeas Unit, State of CT, Levonne Perez, Ofcr. Adult Probation, John Rowland, former Gov., Jodi Rell, Gov. State of CT, Defendants-Appellees, Mae Robinson, Denise Bryant, James Kinsey, George Nieves, Bethzaida Nieves, Danny Valentin, Daphne Valentin, Vincent Porpora, Angel Batista, Terrance Fain, Defendants.
    Nos. 06-3765-cv(L), 06-4907-cv(con), 06-5487-cv(con).
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 1, 2008.
    William H. Doriss, Yarmouthport, MA, pro se.
    Michael A. Wolak, III, (Jonathan H. Beamon, of counsel) Office of Corporation Counsel, City of New Haven, New Haven, CT, for Defendants-Appellees City of New Haven, Officer Crisco, Officer Naccarato, Officer Andre Diaz, Officer Martinez, Lieutenant John Smith, Officer Craig Alston, Officer Holly Miller, Reginald Thomas and Mayor John DeStefano.
    Maura Murphy-Osborne, Assistant Attorney General, for Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT, for Defendants-Appellees Judge Joan Alexander, Judge Frank Iannotti, Judge Bernadette Conway, Judge Joseph Flynn, Judge Anne Dranginis, Marjorie Dauster, Michael Dearington, Elizabeth Bodine, Maura K. Coyne, Margaret Flynn, Levonne Perez, Governor M. Jodi Rell and former Governor John Rowland.
    Rene Martineau, Del Sole & Del Sole, L.L.P., Wallingford, CT, for DefendantAppellee Melvin Wearing.
    PRESENT: Hon. PIERRE N. LEVAL, Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI, and Hon. RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant William H. Doriss filed a complaint against the City of New Haven, the State of Connecticut, and thirty-three named individuals (including city officials, current and former state officials, and private persons), alleging that these defendants violated his constitutional rights in connection with his arrest, prosecution, and conviction on two counts of neglecting to restrain an animal from injuring another animal. On November 9, 2006, judgment was entered dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. Doriss appeals from this judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and scope of the issues presented on appeal.

This Court “review[s] de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). See also Weinstein v. Albright, 261 F.3d 127, 132 (2d Cir.2001) (noting that courts are instructed, in particular, to construe liberally the claims of pro se litigants raising civil rights complaints). Nevertheless, and for substantially the reasons expressed in the opinion of the district court judge, dated August 24, 2006, 2006 WL 2474916, we affirm the dismissal of Doriss’s complaint. We decline to consider Doriss’s claim of equitable estoppel, as it was not raised below. See Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 582, 594 n. 13 (2d Cir.2003) (citing Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976)).

We have considered all of Plaintiff-Appellant’s claims and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.  