Dunaway v. The Village of Mamaroneck

Background

Michael Dunaway proceeded without a lawyer and sued the Village of Mamaroneck, the County of Westchester, and five John Doe defendants. The court read his complaint as asserting one claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violating constitutional rights. The alleged violation involved inadequate medical care under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process clause.

Dunaway alleged that he was taken into custody at either Mamaroneck Jail or Westchester County Jail on July 11, 2019, and again on August 14, 2019. Before entering custody, he and his father allegedly informed an unknown person that Dunaway had Type 1 diabetes and needed a glucose monitor and medication. Dunaway alleged that, after he entered custody, his belongings were confiscated; an officer denied him access to his glucose monitor and medicine; he did not receive the meals, snacks, or drinks prescribed for a person with Type 1 diabetes; and he received no medical attention to monitor his glucose levels. He alleged that his diabetes became uncontrolled and that he later experienced anxiety, sleeplessness, panic attacks, and paranoia about his glucose levels.

Motions to Dismiss

The Village and the County separately moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Dunaway did not file an opposition to either motion.

The court applied the rule that a complaint must contain enough factual matter to make relief plausible, while construing a complaint filed by a self-represented plaintiff liberally. For a municipality to be liable under § 1983 under the rule from Monell v. Department of Social Services, the plaintiff must allege that a municipal policy or custom caused the constitutional injury. A municipality cannot be held liable merely because it employed the person who allegedly caused the harm.

Federal Municipal-Liability Claims

The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that Dunaway adequately alleged an underlying Fourteenth Amendment violation. It nevertheless held that he did not sufficiently allege a policy or custom by either municipality. The complaint described the conduct of a single officer at an unidentified facility and alleged that Dunaway did not receive appropriate food, medication, or glucose monitoring. It did not identify which municipality employed the alleged wrongdoer or explain how either municipality had a policy or custom of denying detainees adequate medical care or appropriate meals.

The court also found that Dunaway did not allege that other detainees experienced similar deprivations or that the alleged conduct was common or widespread. His allegation that local officials, jail staff, medical staff, and court staff made no effort to follow a judge’s directives was deemed conclusory and insufficient to establish a municipal policy or custom.

The court dismissed the Monell claims against the Village and the County without prejudice to renewal if Dunaway could replead them with additional facts. The court granted him leave to file an amended complaint containing more specific allegations about the municipalities’ relevant policies and customs. He had until July 31, 2024, to do so. If he did not amend within the permitted time and could not show good cause, claims dismissed without prejudice under the order would be deemed dismissed with prejudice.

State-Law Claims

To the extent Dunaway asserted state-law claims, the court dismissed them with prejudice. New York law generally requires a plaintiff suing a municipality or its officers, agents, or employees for a tort to serve a notice of claim within 90 days and plead that the notice was served. The court found that Dunaway pleaded no facts concerning a notice of claim.

Other Dispositions and Conclusion

The court stated that the defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted. It dismissed all John Doe defendants because Dunaway had not filed an amended complaint identifying them or shown good cause for failing to do so. The clerk was directed to terminate the two motions and the John Doe defendants from the action. The court also directed that a copy of the opinion and order be mailed to Dunaway.

Judge Roman therefore granted both Rule 12(b)(6) motions, dismissed the Monell claims without prejudice, dismissed the state-law claims with prejudice, and granted leave to amend the Monell claims.