Torres v. City of New York

Background

Wilfredo Torres, representing himself, filed this action against the City of New York; New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr.; the Legal Aid Society; New York City Health + Hospitals; the Blackstone Group; the Central Intelligence Agency; and the United States Department of Justice. He asserted that the defendants violated rights under the United States and New York Constitutions and requested $30,000,000 in damages.

The complaint discussed alleged events beginning with Torres’s theory about the September 11, 2001 attacks. It also repeated allegations concerning September 28, 2015, and April 28, 2016, including alleged entries into his apartment, arrests, restraints, medical treatment, and related conduct. Those events were also the subject of three earlier related actions that remained pending. The complaint additionally described alleged events in December 2018 and February 2019, including attempted entry into Torres’s apartment, criminal complaints, an arrest, a search, removal of property, and an involuntary psychiatric examination.

Screening standard

Because Torres was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought damages from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stated that it would read a self-represented litigant’s complaint liberally and interpret it to raise the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the allegations.

Rulings on the claims

The court dismissed the claims concerning September 11, 2001, as frivolous. It concluded that the allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported those claims.

The court dismissed the claims concerning September 28, 2015, and April 28, 2016, because they duplicated claims Torres was already litigating in earlier related actions. The dismissal was stated to be without prejudice to his claims in those earlier actions.

The court dismissed the claims against the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Justice as frivolous under sovereign immunity. It explained that federal agencies generally cannot be sued for damages unless the United States has waived immunity. Although the Federal Tort Claims Act provides a limited waiver for certain claims, Torres did not allege that he had first filed the required administrative claim or received a final agency determination, and he did not allege that six months had passed without such a determination.

The court construed the claims against Cyrus Vance as federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It dismissed those claims under prosecutorial immunity because they arose from Vance’s prosecution of Torres. Prosecutorial immunity protects prosecutors from damages claims for acts within the scope of their prosecutorial duties and closely connected to the criminal court process.

The court also construed the claims against the Legal Aid Society and the Blackstone Group as § 1983 claims and dismissed them for failure to state a claim. Section 1983 generally requires conduct under color of state law, and the court found that Torres had not alleged facts showing that either private organization acted as a state actor. The court also found that his vague allegations of a conspiracy between his Legal Aid Society attorney and Vance lacked supporting facts.

As to the City of New York and New York City Health + Hospitals, the court explained that a municipality or similar public entity is not liable under § 1983 merely because an employee allegedly acted unlawfully. Torres had to allege a policy, custom, or practice of the entity that caused the constitutional violation. Because the remaining allegations appeared to concern events in December 2018 and February 2019, the court granted leave to amend those claims rather than dismissing them at that stage.

The court also granted leave to amend to identify individuals allegedly involved in the December 2018 or February 2019 events and to allege each person’s direct and personal involvement. If Torres did not know a person’s name, the court allowed him to use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe,” but warned that doing so would not stop the limitations period from running.

Disposition

The court dismissed all claims except those against the City of New York and New York City Health + Hospitals. It granted Torres leave to file an amended complaint limited to the permitted claims and allegations. The amended complaint had to be filed with the Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days, and it had to replace rather than supplement the original complaint. The court stated that failure to comply, absent good cause, would result in dismissal of the remaining claims for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon signed the order.