Simpara v. New York District Authority

Background

Binafrou Simpara proceeded without a lawyer and had permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. The complaint invoked federal-question jurisdiction and described events spanning approximately 30 years. Simpara alleged that police threatened him to act as an informant between 1995 and 1998, that he was shot in 1996, that he developed a bedsore after visiting Mount Sinai in 2021, and that hospital staff injured him at Jacobi and failed to respond. He also described alleged problems involving transportation in a wheelchair, assistance with citizenship, the Mayor’s Office, Access VR, and immigration-related matters.

Screening standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a complaint filed without prepaying fees if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant immune from that relief. The court must also dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints liberally, the complaint still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

Brooklyn North and City of New York claims

The court treated the claims against Brooklyn North NYPD as claims against the City of New York because an NYPD precinct is not a separately suable entity. The court held that the claims based on events from 1995 through 1998 were barred by New York’s three-year limitations period for Section 1983 claims. Because Simpara filed the complaint in 2024, the court concluded that the limitations period had expired no later than 2001.

The court dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim, without prejudice to filing a new civil action in the proper venue. It explained that the events occurred in Brooklyn, Kings County, which is in the Eastern District of New York rather than the Southern District of New York. The court also stated that any new action would need to address whether equitable tolling applies to the period from 2001 to 2024.

Jacobi Medical Center and New York City Health + Hospitals

The court dismissed the claims against Jacobi Medical Center for failure to state a claim, explaining that a hospital is not a “person” subject to liability under Section 1983. Because Simpara was self-represented, the court construed the Jacobi claims as also brought against New York City Health + Hospitals, which operates Jacobi and may be sued under Section 1983.

The court nevertheless dismissed the claims against Health + Hospitals for failure to state a claim. It explained that municipal liability requires facts showing both a municipal policy, custom, or practice and a connection between that policy, custom, or practice and the alleged constitutional violation. The allegation that hospital staff “got bit up” Simpara did not describe facts suggesting an underlying constitutional violation or a municipal policy causing one. The dismissal was accompanied by 30 days’ leave to file an amended complaint concerning the Jacobi events against Health + Hospitals and any Health + Hospitals staff Simpara claims violated his constitutional rights.

Mount Sinai and Montefiore Hospital

The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims against Mount Sinai and Montefiore Hospital for failure to state a claim because the opinion identifies both as private entities. Section 1983 generally applies to conduct taken under color of state law, and the court found no basis in the complaint to treat these private hospitals as state actors.

NY DA (District Attorney)

The complaint identified an unspecified New York district attorney but did not identify an office or describe an incident involving a district attorney. Assuming Simpara meant to sue an individual involved in prosecuting him, the court held that the prosecutor would have absolute immunity for actions within the scope of prosecutorial duties closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. The court dismissed the claims against “New York (District Attorney)” because they sought money from an immune defendant and were therefore frivolous under the screening statute.

Transportation, disability, and immigration-related allegations

The court declined to grant leave to add claims involving the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the New York City Mayor’s Office, Access VR, or immigration officials or individuals. It held that these allegations were unrelated to the Jacobi claims for which amendment was allowed and therefore could not be joined in the same case under Rule 20. The court stated that Simpara could pursue those claims in new civil actions.

State-law claims, amendment, and disposition

Because the court dismissed the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Simpara might be asserting. The court granted 30 days’ leave to amend only to provide additional facts concerning the Jacobi events and potential claims against Health + Hospitals and its staff. If no amended complaint is filed within that period, the court stated that the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii), dismissed the Brooklyn North claims without prejudice to pursuing them in the proper venue, dismissed the Jacobi Medical Center claims, and construed the Jacobi claims as also brought against Health + Hospitals with 30 days’ leave to amend. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, so filing-fee waiver status was denied for an appeal.