Washington v. Adams

Background

Jerome Washington, who is representing himself, sued Mayor Eric Adams; the New York Police Chief, which the court understood to be an official with the New York City Police Department; the director of the New York Fire Department ambulance service; and FDNY paramedics Tameca Santini and Rashid Watts. The court treated the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims against state or local officials for violating constitutional rights.

Washington alleged that he was the victim of what he believed was a hit-and-run on May 3, 2024. He said ambulance personnel stated that he had been hit by a vehicle, but that there was no police report or investigation and no review of camera footage. He alleged that police did not question him and that the police department, the mayor, and the police chief were negligent. He also alleged that the FDNY director and the two paramedics failed to inform police about what he described as a possible attempted murder. Washington sought $2 million for pain and suffering, a permanent scar, and continuing headaches.

The court had previously allowed Washington to proceed without prepaying court fees. In reviewing that type of complaint, the court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, legally insufficient, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also explained that a self-represented complaint must still provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

Claims Against the Mayor and Police Chief

The court held that a § 1983 claim for damages requires allegations showing each defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional violation. A supervisor cannot be held liable merely because the supervisor employs or oversees someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights. Because Washington alleged no facts showing that Mayor Adams or the NYPD Police Chief personally participated in the events, the court dismissed the claims against them for failure to state a claim.

Claims Against the FDNY Director and Paramedics

The court held that Washington’s allegations that the FDNY director and the paramedics failed to investigate the accident or notify police did not state a constitutional claim. The court explained that the Constitution generally does not impose a duty on government officials to investigate an accident or protect an individual from harm. It therefore dismissed the claims against those defendants for failure to state a claim.

State-Law Claims

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, which is the authority to hear related state-law claims, because it had dismissed all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction. The opinion says Washington may have been asserting state-law claims but does not identify separate state-law causes of action.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), with 30 days’ leave to replead. The order does not describe the dismissal as with or without prejudice. Because the court could not say that amendment would be futile, it allowed Washington to file an amended complaint addressing the defects. If he does not do so within the allowed time, the clerk will be directed to enter judgment.

The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Washington permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The court directed the clerk to keep the matter open on the docket until a civil judgment is entered.