Werner v. The City of New York

Background

Bradley A. Werner, Jr. proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. His original complaint named his criminal defense attorney, a New York County assistant district attorney, and the City of New York. He alleged that he was falsely arrested in 2023 and that the defendants violated his rights in connection with a criminal case. He also alleged that the District Attorney’s Office and the Mayor’s Office were corrupt, leading to his being tortured and attacked at Rikers Island.

In an earlier order, the court dismissed the claims against the defense attorney because he was a private actor, dismissed the claims against the assistant district attorney based on prosecutorial immunity, and dismissed the claims against the City because the complaint did not allege facts showing that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused a rights violation. The court allowed Werner to file an amended complaint.

The amended complaint named only the City of New York. It asserted claims connected to the alleged arrest and treatment at Rikers Island, including false arrest, malicious prosecution, due process and fair-trial violations, cruel and unusual punishment, conspiracy, failure to intervene, failure to protect, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, destruction of property, and deliberate indifference. Werner also sought compensation for an affordable apartment he said he lost because of his incarceration.

Municipal-liability standard

The court explained that a municipality is not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 merely because one of its employees or agents allegedly committed wrongdoing. A plaintiff must allege facts showing both that a municipal policy, custom, or practice existed and that it caused the constitutional violation. A plaintiff may rely on a formally adopted policy, actions by policymakers, a widespread practice, or a failure to train or supervise that amounts to deliberate indifference to constitutional rights.

The court found that the amended complaint did not contain facts supporting a municipal-liability claim against the City. The opinion therefore dismissed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the provision requiring dismissal of an in-forma-pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.

State-law claims and further amendment

The court stated that it could decline supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—after dismissing all claims within its original federal jurisdiction. Because the federal claims had been dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Werner might be asserting.

The court also declined to give Werner another opportunity to amend. It explained that he had already been given an opportunity to correct the defects and that the defects in the amended complaint could not be cured by another amendment.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the amended complaint, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Werner permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.