Jr. v. Any and All Doctors That Gave the Order to Forcibly Injure the Plaintiff…

Background

Robert Derek Lurch Jr., representing himself, alleged that an incident at Delta Manor Men’s Shelter on January 5, 2025 led to his involuntary transportation to Saint Barnabas Hospital and forced injection with psychotropic medication. He sued hospital doctors and staff, emergency medical technicians Peter Moger and Alex Teo, unidentified police officers, and shelter employee Madelyn Estevez. He asserted federal constitutional claims and sought compensatory and punitive damages of $2 million from each individual defendant and entity.

The court had previously allowed Lurch to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It therefore screened his complaint under the federal statute governing complaints filed without prepayment of fees. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court treated Lurch’s complaint and supplement together as the operative complaint.

Hospital and Shelter Defendants

The court understood Lurch to be asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows a person to seek damages for a violation of federal rights by someone acting for the government. The court explained that the Constitution generally does not regulate private parties and that private conduct must be fairly attributable to the government to support a claim under that statute.

The court dismissed the claims against the Saint Barnabas Hospital doctors and staff because it concluded that the private hospital and its medical personnel were not government actors when they involuntarily hospitalized and medicated Lurch. The court also dismissed the claims against Madelyn Estevez. It concluded that Delta Manor was privately operated, that providing shelter did not make its staff government actors, and that Estevez’s contact with emergency services and information about Lurch did not plausibly show the required bad faith or government action.

Emergency Medical Technicians and Police Officers

Lurch alleged that the emergency medical technicians initially believed he did not need to go to the hospital but changed their view after speaking with shelter staff. He disputed that he was prescribed medication or was failing to take it. The court nevertheless concluded that, based on the reports about his interaction with another shelter resident and his alleged failure to take prescribed medication, the technicians could reasonably conclude that there was a probability of dangerous behavior requiring a hospital evaluation.

The court therefore dismissed Lurch’s Fourth Amendment claims against Moger, Teo, and the unidentified police officers for failure to state a claim. The court reasoned that the allegations did not show that these defendants violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures.

State-Law Claims and Amendment

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its authority to hear related state-law claims, over any state-law claims Lurch may have asserted.

The court granted Lurch 30 days to file an amended complaint because it concluded that he might be able to allege additional facts supporting a valid claim. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must identify what each defendant allegedly did, when and where the events occurred, the injuries claimed, and the relief sought. The court stated that no summons would issue at that time and that, if Lurch did not amend, it would enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

Disposition

Judge Kimba M. Wood dismissed the federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, and granted leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.