Acevedo v. City of New York

Background

Felipe Acevedo, who was incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, brought the case without a lawyer and sought money damages. He sued the City of New York and NYC Health + Hospitals, which the opinion identifies as the former New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The court treated both his original complaint and amended complaint as the operative pleading because both contained material facts.

Acevedo alleged that on August 5 and/or August 6, 2023, he was treated at Harlem Hospital for gunshot wounds. He said that he received a doctor’s examination, a computed tomography scan, an X-ray, pain medication, and wound bandaging. He alleged that the hospital then discharged him into New York City Police Department custody, where he was moved from cell to cell, worsening his injuries. He claimed permanent damage, severe pain, mental anguish, disfigurement, and nerve damage, and alleged that he was not admitted for surgery.

Legal standard and claims

Because Acevedo sued municipalities under the Fourteenth Amendment, the court construed his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For a municipal liability claim, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused the violation of constitutional rights. The court also applied the rule requiring dismissal of a complaint filed without prepayment of fees if it fails to state a claim for relief.

The court analyzed the medical-care allegations under the Fourteenth Amendment’s deliberate-indifference standard. That standard requires facts suggesting that an official intentionally imposed the challenged condition or recklessly failed to act with reasonable care despite knowing, or having reason to know, that the condition posed an excessive risk to health or safety.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that Acevedo did not allege facts showing that NYC Health + Hospitals or the City adopted a policy, custom, or practice concerning the discharge of hospital patients into police custody. The allegations instead suggested only that Harlem Hospital did not perform surgery. Acevedo did not allege that medical staff made that decision pursuant to a policy, custom, or practice of NYC Health + Hospitals, and the allegations did not show that the City caused a constitutional violation.

The court also held that Acevedo did not allege that an employee of either defendant knew, or should have known, of an excessive risk to his health and then disregarded that risk. The court therefore dismissed the claims against NYC Health + Hospitals and the City of New York for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Disposition

Judge Woods dismissed the action and granted Acevedo 30 days to file a second amended complaint. The new complaint must identify relevant people and their titles, describe what each defendant did or failed to do and when and where it occurred, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. It will replace, rather than supplement, the earlier pleadings. The court said that if Acevedo does not comply within the allowed time and cannot show good cause, it will direct the clerk to enter judgment.

The court directed the clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered, mail the order to Acevedo, and substitute NYC Health + Hospitals for the former corporate name in the case caption. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.