Ahmed v. City of New York

Background

Alaaeldin S. Ahmed, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York; Mayor Eric Adams in his official capacity; Edward A. Caban in his official capacity as Police Commissioner; and Rebecca U. Weiner in her official capacity as Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence & Counterterrorism. The opinion notes that Jessica S. Tisch replaced Caban as Police Commissioner, but that the substitution had no effect on the substance of the action or the opinion.

Ahmed alleged that the New York City Police Department had surveilled him since the early 2000s and had colluded with nonparties, including his co-workers, to discriminate against and harass him because of his Muslim identity. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute allowing claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal rights. His claims invoked the First Amendment’s religious-freedom and establishment protections, the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal-protection protection, and the New York State Constitution.

The defendants filed an unopposed motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court gave Ahmed additional time to respond because he was representing himself, but he did not file an opposition or otherwise contact the court.

Statute of limitations

The court held that most of Ahmed’s allegations concerned his employment and hiring at New York Presbyterian Hospital and occurred more than three years before the action. For § 1983 claims filed in New York, the court applies a three-year deadline that generally begins when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury. The court therefore held that claims based on those allegations were untimely.

The court identified allegations that might fall within the three-year period concerning the alleged effect of surveillance on Ahmed’s efforts to expand a health-care side business during a 2022 trip to France and the loss of his luggage at John F. Kennedy International Airport. It held, however, that those allegations and the complaint’s other allegations did not state actionable claims.

Federal constitutional claims

The court held that the complaint did not adequately allege the personal involvement of Adams, Caban, or Weiner. A § 1983 claim requires facts showing what each individual defendant personally did to violate the Constitution. The court found that Ahmed’s general references to high-ranking City and Police Department officials, including allegations against the defendants as a group, were insufficient.

The court also held that Ahmed did not plausibly allege a conspiracy between the Police Department and his employer or co-workers. The complaint did not specifically allege an agreement to act together to cause an unconstitutional injury. General or conclusory allegations of coordinated conduct were insufficient.

As to the City, the court explained that municipal liability requires an official policy or custom that caused a constitutional violation. Because the complaint did not adequately allege an underlying constitutional violation by a state actor, the court held that the claim against the City also failed.

State constitutional claim

The court dismissed Ahmed’s New York State constitutional claim because it duplicated the theory of liability asserted under the federal Constitution. The opinion stated that state constitutional claims are ordinarily dismissed when the complaint does not present a theory of liability that is independently available only under the state Constitution.

Alternative failure-to-prosecute discussion and disposition

The court stated that it also would have been warranted in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute because Ahmed had not contacted the court for approximately eight months, had not explained his failure to oppose the motion, and had taken no other steps to prosecute the case. The court nevertheless ruled on the defendants’ motion to dismiss and concluded that the motion was granted.

Judge Margaret M. Garnett’s conclusion states: “Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.” The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.