Acevedo v. City of New York

Background

Felipe Acevedo alleged that he was shot in the foot on August 6, 2023, treated at Harlem Hospital, and released into the custody of New York City police officers Edwin Howell and Griselly Rosario. According to the allegations, the officers took him to a police station, where he was questioned for approximately six and a half hours while his bandages and orthopedic shoe became soaked with blood. Acevedo alleged that he was forced to stand and walk despite severe pain and that he suffered further injury.

Acevedo, representing himself, sued the City of New York and other defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. As to the City, he alleged that the officers’ conduct resulted from a municipal policy, custom, or inadequate training or supervision. The court also construed his complaint as asserting New York state-law tort claims against the City. The City moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Federal Claims Against the City

The court held that Acevedo could not hold the City responsible merely because the police officers were City employees. Under the municipal-liability rules for § 1983 claims, he had to allege an official policy or custom that caused a constitutional violation.

The court considered only the conduct of the police officers for purposes of the City’s liability. It held that Acevedo could not impose liability on the City for the conduct of Harlem Hospital employees because those employees worked for the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, which the opinion describes as a separate public benefit corporation and legal entity.

The court rejected Acevedo’s allegations that the officers’ conduct reflected an unlawful custom or practice. The complaint described conduct by two officers on one day but did not allege a widespread practice or facts showing that senior policymakers knew about and tolerated similar misconduct. The court also rejected the failure-to-train or supervise theory because Acevedo did not identify a specific training or supervision deficiency, connect it to his alleged injury, or allege a pattern of similar misconduct.

The court therefore granted the City’s motion to dismiss the federal claims. It concluded that further amendment would be futile because Acevedo had already received two opportunities to amend his federal claims and had not cured the identified defects. The federal claims against the City were dismissed with prejudice.

New York State-Law Claims

The court construed the complaint as asserting state-law tort claims against the City. New York law requires a person bringing such claims against a municipality to serve a notice of claim and to plead compliance with that requirement. Acevedo did not allege that he served the City with a notice of claim.

The court dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice. Because earlier rulings had not addressed the notice-of-claim issue, the court granted Acevedo leave to amend those claims. Any amended complaint addressing the state-law claims was due within 30 days after entry of the order.

Disposition

Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the City of New York’s motion to dismiss. The federal claims against the City were dismissed with prejudice, and the New York state-law claims against the City were dismissed without prejudice. The City was terminated as a defendant. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not resolve the claims against the other defendants.