Pereira v. New York City Department of Education

Background

Arao Abel Pereira, representing himself and proceeding without paying filing fees, filed claims concerning alleged inadequate or negligent medical care, race and national-origin discrimination, and inappropriate sexual conduct. His second amended complaint focused on events involving several hospitals, including claims about urination problems and prostate cancer, penile-implant surgeries and infections, vision loss, tumors, and alleged inappropriate examinations. He sought $5 million in damages.

The only defendant named in the caption of the second amended complaint was New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (H+H). Pereira also referred to Bronx Lebanon Medical Center, “Grand Concourse Medical Center,” and Jacobi Medical Center. The court noted that it could not find information confirming the existence of “Grand Concourse Medical Center,” and that it was unclear whether “Grand Concourse Main Hospital” referred to St. Barnabas Hospital.

The court had previously dismissed claims Pereira appeared to be bringing on behalf of his daughters, identified unrelated claims against multiple defendants, and directed him to file separate actions for separate incidents. It also ordered him to provide a short and plain statement, identify a valid basis for federal jurisdiction, and name only the defendants involved in the selected incident. Pereira’s first amended complaint still included many unrelated claims, so the court gave him another opportunity to amend. The court found that his second amended complaint continued to present multiple unrelated claims and did not cure the earlier deficiencies.

Federal claims

The court construed Pereira’s allegations as potentially asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a remedy when a person acting under state authority violates federal rights. To sue H+H under that statute, Pereira had to allege facts showing that an H+H policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged violation. The court found that he did not do so. His allegations about Jacobi concerned two operations to remove recurrent benign tumors, but they did not plausibly suggest that an H+H policy or practice caused a violation of his constitutional or statutory rights.

The court also explained that the private hospitals generally could not be sued under Section 1983 because Pereira did not allege that they acted under state authority. The court considered whether Pereira’s references to race discrimination could support claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which protects the right to make and enforce contracts without racial discrimination. It found that his allegations did not show that race affected the medical care he received or that the private hospitals treated him differently because of his race. The court therefore dismissed any Section 1981 claims for failure to state a claim.

The court also considered possible claims under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race, color, religion, and national-origin discrimination in public accommodations. It found that Pereira’s allegations of race and national-origin discrimination were conclusory and did not identify facts showing that either characteristic played a role in the alleged deficiencies in his medical care. The court dismissed those claims as well.

State-law claims and jurisdiction

Pereira invoked diversity jurisdiction for his state-law claims. The court explained that this type of jurisdiction generally requires complete differences in state citizenship between the plaintiff and every defendant, along with an amount in dispute exceeding $75,000. Pereira stated that he was an Angolan citizen and that H+H was American, but he did not state his immigration status, the states of citizenship of the private hospitals, or facts establishing complete diversity. The court also noted that he did not identify the legal basis for the $5 million in damages.

The court dismissed the state-law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It noted that any claims seeking to relitigate matters decided in earlier state-court cases might be barred from federal review, and that New York generally provides a two-year-and-six-month limitations period for medical-malpractice and negligence claims. The court did not finally resolve those possible issues because it dismissed the state-law claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court dismissed the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction over the state-law claims. It granted Pereira 30 days to file a third amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. If he does not file one within that period, or does not explain the failure, the court stated that it will direct the Clerk of Court to enter a judgment dismissing the action. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. All other pending matters were terminated, and the Clerk was directed to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered.