Newman v. Katz

Background

Maurice Newman, who is proceeding without a lawyer, sued Mitchell Katz, Behdad Jamshahi, and Leland Chan. Katz is identified as the president and chief executive officer of NYC Health+Hospitals. Jamshahi and Chan are identified as physicians employed by NYC Health+Hospitals at Bellevue, a public hospital in New York, New York.

Newman alleged that he went to Bellevue on March 6, 2021, with chest tightness, wheezing, and shortness of breath. He alleged that Jamshahi and Chan diagnosed him with wheezing but did not schedule follow-up pulmonary testing. Newman later alleged that he was diagnosed with sleep apnea and restrictive lung disease after additional medical care and testing. He claimed that the defendants’ failure to diagnose his condition and inform him about it violated his federal constitutional rights and the New York State Patients’ Bill of Rights. The court construed his claims as including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims for certain constitutional violations by state actors, as well as state-law claims including medical malpractice.

The court had previously allowed Newman to proceed without paying filing fees. It reviewed the complaint under the law requiring dismissal of such an action if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. The court also noted that a self-represented litigant’s complaint must still provide enough facts to make a claim legally plausible.

Claims Against Katz

The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims against Katz because Newman did not allege facts showing that Katz was personally and directly involved in the alleged constitutional violations. Katz could not be held liable merely because he supervised or employed people who allegedly violated Newman’s rights. The court granted Newman leave to amend these claims by alleging how Katz was personally and directly involved.

Procedural Due Process Claims

The court dismissed Newman’s claims that the defendants violated procedural due process by failing to follow the New York State Patients’ Bill of Rights. The court explained that the Patients’ Bill of Rights does not appear to create a private right to sue for its violation. It also stated that New York law appears to provide a possible remedy through a state-law medical malpractice action, and Newman did not allege that he had pursued state remedies or that those remedies were inadequate.

The court granted leave to amend these claims. An amended complaint would need to allege facts showing that Newman attempted to pursue state-law remedies and explain why those remedies were inadequate.

Substantive Due Process Claims

The court also dismissed Newman’s claims that the alleged failures violated substantive due process. Generally, the Constitution does not require government officials to protect an individual from harm. The court identified exceptions for a person held in government custody or when an official affirmatively creates or increases a danger, but Newman did not allege facts showing either circumstance. He also did not allege conduct so extreme that it would meet the constitutional standard for shocking the conscience.

The court granted Newman leave to amend these claims by alleging facts sufficient to show a substantive due process violation.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action and granted Newman 30 days to file an amended complaint. If he does not file one within that period, the court will direct entry of a judgment dismissing all Section 1983 claims for failure to state a claim. The court will also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, including medical malpractice claims, without prejudice to Newman’s asserting those claims in state court. Pending motions and requests will then be denied as moot. The defendants do not have to respond unless Newman files an amended complaint and the court later orders service.