Lu v. Hermans

Background

Jianqiao Lu proceeded without a lawyer and sued Captain George Hermans, Captain Sulahuddeen Azim, and Westchester County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows people to seek relief for violations of federal rights by state actors. Lu alleged that the defendants retaliated against him after he filed grievances challenging repeated strip searches at the Westchester County Department of Corrections.

According to the complaint, Lu was a pretrial detainee and trustee inmate worker. He alleged that he had several trustee jobs, received weekly pay and other benefits, and lived in a trustee housing unit. After he filed grievances about strip searches, he alleged that officials searched his cell, damaged family photographs, filed a false misconduct report accusing him of possessing contraband, removed him from his trustee jobs and housing, and spread false statements that he possessed drugs. He also alleged that Captain Azim found him guilty at a disciplinary hearing and sentenced him to 20 days of punitive confinement.

Legal standards

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Under that rule, a complaint must include enough factual detail to make the claimed violation reasonably plausible, rather than relying mainly on conclusions or speculation. Because Lu was not represented by a lawyer, the court read his allegations liberally and considered the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the complaint.

For a First Amendment retaliation claim, Lu had to plausibly allege protected speech or conduct, an adverse action that could deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising constitutional rights, and a connection between the protected conduct and the adverse action. For a claim against Westchester County, Lu had to plausibly allege that a County policy or custom caused the alleged violation; the County could not be held liable merely because it employed the individual defendants.

First Amendment retaliation claims

The court concluded that Lu’s retaliation allegations were not plausible in several respects. It found that many of his allegations—particularly allegations that Captain Hermans ordered the cell search or fabricated charges and that Captain Azim was motivated to suppress grievances—were conclusory and unsupported by specific facts.

The court dismissed with prejudice the retaliation claims based on alleged impermissible searches. It reasoned that an incarcerated person generally has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a prison cell, although the court noted that calculated harassment unrelated to institutional needs may be addressed under other constitutional protections. The court also dismissed with prejudice the claim based on the alleged fabricated misconduct report concerning contraband. It relied on Lu’s admission that he possessed the materials and his failure to challenge the truth of the misconduct allegations through the available hearing and appeal process.

The court likewise dismissed with prejudice the retaliation claim based on alleged defamation. It found that the allegation that Captain Hermans falsely reported that Lu possessed drugs, without more, did not plausibly support a retaliation claim, particularly because Lu admitted possessing the contraband.

The remaining First Amendment retaliation claims were dismissed without prejudice. The opinion did not state that those claims were dismissed with prejudice at that stage.

Westchester County claim

Lu also attempted to hold Westchester County responsible for retaliation through a municipal-policy-or-custom claim, commonly called a Monell claim. The court found that Lu offered only general and conclusory allegations and did not plausibly identify a County policy or custom that caused the alleged retaliation.

The court rejected Lu’s reliance on four earlier lawsuits because those matters involved different allegations, settlements without admissions of wrongdoing, or dismissals for failure to prosecute, and did not establish a County policy or custom of retaliation. The court also found that a 2009 investigative report concerning older conditions at the correctional facility did not plausibly show a pattern or practice supporting liability for the events alleged in this case. Lu’s allegations concerning inadequate training and supervision were also too conclusory.

The court dismissed the Monell claim against Westchester County without prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The First Amendment retaliation claims were dismissed without prejudice, except for claims based on alleged impermissible searches, the alleged fabricated contraband misconduct report, and defamation, which were dismissed with prejudice. The Monell claim against Westchester County was dismissed without prejudice.

Judge Nelson S. Roman allowed Lu an opportunity to amend. The court directed him to file an amended complaint by December 18, 2024, and stated that if he did not timely amend, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The court also explained that an amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.