Best v. The City of N.Y.
- George Daniels
- 1:18-cv-05973
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Best v. City of New York, Judge Daniels dismissed Best’s amended complaint without prejudice and allowed amendment because it did not allege defendants’ personal involvement.
Sean Best must file any amended complaint within 30 days if he seeks to continue the case. DOCCS and Joanna Brown may renew their motion to dismiss if he files a second amended complaint. The order also dismissed the amended complaint as to the other defendants, although the opinion does not state that those defendants appeared or responded.
What happened
Best v. The City of N.Y. was brought by Sean Best, who represented himself and asserted 33 claims against 67 defendants concerning alleged constitutional and disability-rights violations during incarceration and post-release supervision.
The court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation after no party objected. The recommendation found that Best had not adequately alleged the defendants’ personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations and recommended dismissing the amended complaint while allowing another amendment.
Judge George B. Daniels adopted the recommendation. He dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice and allowed Best 30 days to amend. The court denied the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and Parole Officer Joanna Brown’s motion to dismiss as moot, with leave to renew if Best filed a second amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Best v. The City of N.Y. · No. 1:18-cv-05973
- George Daniels
- Mar. 24, 2020
Background
Sean Best, who represented himself, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. He alleged that his constitutional rights were violated during his incarceration at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and during post-release supervision. His amended complaint asserted 33 claims against 67 defendants.
The City of New York, Acting Warden Phipps, Correction Captain J. Salmon, and Correction Officer R. Ubinas answered the amended complaint. The New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) and Parole Officer Joanna Brown moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim. The opinion states that no other defendant appeared or responded to any complaint.
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang recommended dismissing Best’s amended complaint without prejudice and allowing him 30 days to amend. She also recommended denying DOCCS and Brown’s motion to dismiss as moot, with leave to renew if Best filed a second amended complaint. No objections were filed, so the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning it looked for an obvious mistake, and found none.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that Best failed to allege the defendants’ personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations. Personal involvement is required for damages under § 1983. The court also noted that Best had not responded to DOCCS and Brown’s motion despite receiving multiple extensions to oppose it. The court therefore adopted the recommendation to dismiss the amended complaint on its own initiative, while allowing Best an opportunity to amend.
Disposition
The court adopted Magistrate Judge Wang’s Report and Recommendation. It dismissed Best’s amended complaint without prejudice, with leave to amend within 30 days of the decision and order. It denied DOCCS and Brown’s motion to dismiss as moot, with leave to renew after the filing of any second amended complaint. The opinion does not decide the ultimate merits of Best’s underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.