Liverpool v. The City of New York

Background

Anton Liverpool, representing himself, alleged that on or about March 21, 2018, while incarcerated on Rikers Island, he was ordered to leave his cell to attend court in Manhattan. He said that Defendant Supris drove the bus quickly, accelerated sharply at the Manhattan detention complex, and repeatedly crashed into the facility. Liverpool alleged that he suffered head, neck, and back injuries. He also alleged that Defendant Lewis was on the bus and did not help Supris navigate the entrance. In the amended complaint, Liverpool alleged that Supris appeared intoxicated; he also raised additional driving-related allegations in his opposition papers.

The court previously interpreted Liverpool’s earlier complaint as asserting three types of claims: a federal civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to a serious risk of harm, a claim that the City was responsible for that alleged violation, and a New York negligence claim. The court had previously dismissed those claims but allowed amendment.

Court’s Analysis

The court again applied the standard for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint contains enough factual allegations to make the claimed entitlement to relief plausible. The court held that the Third Amended Complaint still did not provide facts plausibly showing that Supris or Lewis intentionally imposed a dangerous condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps despite knowing of an excessive risk to Liverpool’s safety. Allegations that Supris drove too fast, that he and Lewis conversed, and that Lewis used a cellphone were insufficient by themselves.

The court also declined to credit Liverpool’s intoxication allegation because it conflicted with allegations in his earlier complaints. The court therefore dismissed the related claim against the City as well, because the underlying federal civil-rights claim did not survive.

The court separately dismissed the state-law negligence claims because the complaint showed that they were filed after New York’s one-year-and-90-day limitations period. The alleged incident occurred around March 21, 2018, but Liverpool did not file the original case until June 11, 2020. The court also noted that the complaint did not provide facts supporting an extension of the deadline. It said that the possible failure to plead service of a notice of claim was an additional problem, although the statute of limitations was the primary reason for dismissing the negligence claim.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice. It granted Liverpool another opportunity to amend because he stated in his opposition that he had made good-faith efforts to obtain proof that he served a notice of claim. The court directed him to include facts about the notice of claim and any basis for extending the statute of limitations, and ordered him to file the amended complaint by November 1, 2024. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. directed the clerk to terminate the motion from the docket.