Herbert v. SanFeliz
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-04299
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Herbert v. SanFeliz, Judge Karas granted a motion to dismiss four claims, allowing Herbert 30 days to seek amendment.
Jeremiah Folsom Herbert’s claims against Christina SanFeliz, Devinnie M. Depuy, and Christopher Fox were affected. The court dismissed four claims, while the opinion did not dismiss the excessive-force or bodily-privacy claims in this ruling.
What happened
In Herbert v. SanFeliz, Jeremiah Folsom Herbert, representing himself, alleged that Christina SanFeliz, Devinnie M. Depuy, and Christopher Fox used excessive force, invaded his bodily privacy, failed to provide medical care, failed to train, acted negligently, and unlawfully searched him. The allegations arose from a 2022 search, detention, alleged assaults, and strip search.
The court granted Depuy and Fox’s motion to dismiss and applied the same result to SanFeliz, who did not join the motion. It dismissed the medical-care, unlawful-search, failure-to-train, and negligence claims. The failure-to-train claim was dismissed without prejudice, and the unlawful-search claim was dismissed without prejudice subject to possible repleading if Herbert overturns his conviction. The opinion did not dismiss the excessive-force or bodily-privacy claims in this ruling.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas ruled that the medical-care allegations did not describe sufficiently serious injuries, the search claim was barred because success would undermine Herbert’s conviction, the failure-to-train allegations lacked supporting facts, and the negligence allegations described intentional conduct. Herbert may file a second amended complaint within 30 days; otherwise, his claims may be dismissed with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Herbert v. SanFeliz · No. 7:22-cv-04299
- Kenneth Karas
- Mar. 21, 2025
Background
Jeremiah Folsom Herbert, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Christina SanFeliz, Devinnie M. Depuy, and Christopher Fox. He alleged excessive force, invasion of bodily privacy, failure to train, negligence, deliberate indifference to medical needs, and an unlawful search.
According to the amended complaint, on April 4, 2022, the defendants executed a search warrant at an apartment in Liberty, New York. Herbert alleged that he was not the target of the warrant, was dragged and slammed into the floor and doors, was kicked after being handcuffed, and was later struck in an isolation room. He also alleged that defendants ignored his requests for medical attention, held him in handcuffs for more than four hours, and conducted a strip search involving a visual inspection of his anal and genital areas and improper touching.
Depuy and Fox filed a partial motion to dismiss. SanFeliz did not join the motion, but the court applied the same relief to her because the court concluded that its analysis applied equally to all defendants.
Court’s Analysis
Deliberate Indifference to Medical Needs
Herbert alleged head trauma, back pain, bruises, swollen eyes, and shoulder pain and claimed that he needed medical attention. The court held that these alleged injuries were not sufficiently serious to support a constitutional claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The court dismissed this claim.
Unlawful Search
Herbert challenged the search that led to his state conviction for controlled-substance possession. The court applied the rule that a civil-rights damages claim cannot proceed when success would necessarily imply that an existing criminal conviction is invalid. Because Herbert challenged the single search that led to his conviction, the court held that his unlawful-search claim was barred. The court dismissed this claim without prejudice subject to possible repleading if Herbert overturns his conviction.
Failure to Train
The court held that Herbert did not provide facts explaining how Depuy, Fox, or SanFeliz failed to train or supervise subordinates. His allegations that defendants lacked proper training and violated State Police policies were not enough to make the claim plausible. The court dismissed the failure-to-train claim without prejudice.
Negligence
The court held that Herbert’s negligence allegations were based on conduct he described as intentional, including dragging him, striking him, and improperly touching him during the strip search. Under the law applied by the court, a negligence claim cannot be based on conduct that, if proved, would constitute intentional acts. The court dismissed the negligence claim.
Disposition
The court granted the motion and dismissed Herbert’s claims for failure to train, negligence, deliberate indifference, and unlawful search as against Depuy, Fox, and SanFeliz. The ruling did not dismiss the excessive-force or bodily-privacy claims. The court allowed Herbert 30 days to file a second amended complaint containing all claims, defendants, and facts he wants considered. The court stated that if he does not timely file one, his claims may be dismissed with prejudice. The second amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the amended complaint.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.