Chavez v. Finney

Background

Juan Pablo Chavez, appearing without a lawyer, brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. He alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. The amended complaint named Sgt. Finney; BRC “The Boulevard”; Elmhurst CPEP; Mount Sinai Hospital; ADT Recommender; the “730 Psychs”; the DHS Office of the Ombudsman; the American Red Cross; and John and Jane Doe defendants identified by shield numbers 3281 and 3271.

Chavez’s allegations included claims involving an arrest, religious worship, alleged discrimination, and alleged detention. The court noted that the amended complaint incorporated other materials and prior filings by reference and did not provide a clear, self-contained statement of the claims.

Screening of Claims

Because Chavez had permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint. Under that screening law, the court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought money from an immune defendant.

The court dismissed Chavez’s claims against BRC “The Boulevard,” Elmhurst CPEP, Mount Sinai Hospital, ADT Recommender, the 730 Psychs, the American Red Cross, and the DHS Office of the Ombudsman. It concluded that Chavez had not alleged facts showing that those defendants violated his federal rights. The court also stated that BRC, Elmhurst CPEP, Mount Sinai Hospital, ADT Recommender, and the American Red Cross appeared not to be state actors, meaning entities acting under state law for purposes of § 1983.

The court additionally concluded that the DHS Office of the Ombudsman, as an agency of New York City, could not be sued in that form. It stated that the City is generally the proper defendant for claims based on a city agency’s official acts or failures to act. The court also explained that the doctors Chavez called the “730 Psychs” appeared to have conducted court-ordered competency examinations and therefore were protected by immunity for those actions.

The court declined to give Chavez permission to amend these claims because it found that the defects could not be corrected through amendment.

Service and Further Proceedings

The court ordered the clerk to prepare the documents needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Sgt. Finney. Because Chavez was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons was issued. The court also instructed Chavez to notify it in writing if his address changed.

Under a rule allowing a court to help an unrepresented litigant identify unknown defendants, the court ordered the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to identify the John and Jane Doe defendants with shield numbers 3281 and 3271 and provide their service addresses to Chavez and the court within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving that information, Chavez was ordered to file a second amended complaint naming those defendants. The new complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the existing amended complaint.

Disposition

The court dismissed the claims against BRC “The Boulevard,” Elmhurst CPEP, Mount Sinai Hospital, ADT Recommender, the 730 Psychs, the American Red Cross, and the DHS Office of the Ombudsman. It ordered service-related steps for Sgt. Finney and the Doe defendants. 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.