Slade v. City of New York

Background

Ricco D. Slade, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that Dr. Raina Aggarwal forced him to take psychiatric medication against his will. Slade was initially held at the Rikers Island Correctional Facility and was temporarily transferred to Bellevue Hospital’s Prison Ward because of concerns about his well-being. Dr. Aggarwal determined that Slade needed to resume medication before returning to Rikers Island. When Slade refused, Dr. Aggarwal began, or threatened to begin, court proceedings seeking an order requiring him to take the medication. Slade ultimately agreed to take medication instead of litigating that issue in court and later alleged that the dosage was increased without his consent.

Slade sued Dr. Aggarwal, the City of New York, and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against certain government actors for violating constitutional rights. He alleged that the defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. The City and, separately, Dr. Aggarwal and the Health and Hospitals Corporation moved 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.

Court’s reasoning

As to the City, the court held that Slade’s allegations concerned treatment at Bellevue Hospital, which the court described as separate and distinct from the City. Slade also did not allege facts showing that the Health and Hospitals Corporation’s conduct was fairly attributable to the City. The court further stated that the Health and Hospitals Corporation is not a “person” that can be sued under Section 1983 and that Section 1983 does not impose liability on an organization merely because its employee allegedly acted unlawfully. To the extent Slade intended to assert municipal liability, the court found that he did not allege a City or Health and Hospitals Corporation policy or custom that caused the alleged constitutional violation.

The court also rejected Slade’s claims against Dr. Aggarwal. According to Slade’s own allegations, he told Dr. Aggarwal that he would take the lowest dosage of Abilify after reviewing possible medications’ side effects and consulting a lawyer appointed to represent him in the matter. The court noted that Slade personally chose the medication he claimed had been forced on him. The court also found that Slade did not allege that he openly objected to the dosage increase; instead, he alleged that he went along with it because he wanted to return to Rikers Island. The court concluded that these allegations defeated his claim that he was forced to take medication against his will.

Disposition

The court held that Slade had not pleaded a claim that was plausible on its face and granted both motions to dismiss. It declined to allow Slade to amend the complaint again, finding that the defects were substantive, based on his own allegations, and could not be cured by amendment. The court also noted that Slade had already been given leave to amend and had not identified additional facts that could cure the defects.

The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the two dismissal motions, enter judgment for the defendants, mail Slade a copy of the opinion and order, and close the case. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.