McTerrell v. Bellview Hospital, Corporation
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-04469
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
McTerrell v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation: Judge Engelmayer granted HHC’s motion, dismissed tort claims with prejudice, and allowed amendment of remaining claims.
Sean McTerrell’s claims were dismissed, with the tort claims barred from refiling and the other claims dismissed without prejudice. HHC and the individual defendants were the parties seeking or receiving dismissal.
What happened
In McTerrell v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Sean McTerrell alleged that Bellevue Hospital staff forcibly medicated him and performed intrusive medical procedures while treating him. He brought the case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The court agreed that McTerrell had not plausibly alleged that a municipal policy or custom caused a constitutional violation. It did not finally decide whether the claims were too late. The court also dismissed claims against unidentified defendants, and potential discrimination, conspiracy, Eighth Amendment, and CEO claims, because they lacked adequate factual support or identifying information.
Judge Engelmayer granted HHC’s motion to dismiss. The tort claims were dismissed with prejudice; the other claims were dismissed without prejudice, and McTerrell received 30 days to file an amended complaint.
The detailed version
- McTerrell v. Bellview Hospital, Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-04469
- Paul Engelmayer
- Mar. 30, 2020
Background
Sean McTerrell, proceeding without a lawyer, sued New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC), Jane Doe, John Doe, and unidentified doctors. He alleged that emergency-room and intensive-care staff at Bellevue Hospital forcibly held him down, injected his penis with a drug against his will, and subjected him to intrusive medical treatment. He claimed resulting blackouts, memory loss, headaches, and nightmares, as well as the loss of his apartment, job, and possessions.
HHC moved to dismiss. A magistrate judge recommended granting HHC’s motion, dismissing the claims against the unidentified individual defendants without prejudice, dismissing additional potential claims, and allowing McTerrell to amend. McTerrell objected, arguing among other things that he had been unaware of his surroundings during treatment, that he had mental illnesses, that his injury was ongoing, and that he should receive help identifying the doctors.
Legal Standards
The district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s recommendations under the standards governing objections to such recommendations. For specific objections, the court reviews the challenged issues independently; for portions without proper objections, it looks for clear error.
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege enough facts to make a claim for relief plausible. Because McTerrell was not represented by a lawyer, the court read his complaint generously, but it still required him to allege a plausible claim.
Because HHC is a municipal corporation, McTerrell’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was governed by the rule from Monell v. Department of Social Services. That rule generally requires a plaintiff to allege that an official municipal policy or custom caused the violation of a constitutional right. A municipality cannot be held responsible merely because one of its employees allegedly acted unlawfully.
Analysis
The court found that McTerrell had not alleged an official policy or custom that caused the alleged forced medication and medical procedures. His allegation that Bellevue violated its own policy requiring adequate medical service did not identify a policy directing unconstitutional conduct. He also did not allege a custom of violating that policy. The court therefore held that he had not stated a proper municipal-liability claim under § 1983.
The court recognized that the claims appeared likely to be barred by New York’s three-year limitations period because HHC’s records placed McTerrell’s last Bellevue admission in February 2008, and McTerrell acknowledged that Bellevue had not treated him after February 22, 2008. But the court did not decide whether the claims were untimely or whether equitable tolling applied. It dismissed the § 1983 claim instead because it failed under the municipal-liability pleading requirements.
The court dismissed the claims against Jane Doe, John Doe, and the other unidentified individual defendants because McTerrell had not supplied the identifying information previously requested by the court. That dismissal was without prejudice.
The court also addressed claims that could be inferred from McTerrell’s filings. It dismissed any tort claim with prejudice because he had not timely filed the required notice of claim. It dismissed any disability-discrimination claim without prejudice because he did not allege facts showing that he was treated differently because of a disability. It dismissed any claim against Bellevue’s chief executive officer without prejudice because McTerrell had not adequately alleged the officer’s involvement. It dismissed the conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) without prejudice because McTerrell alleged no concrete facts supporting a conspiracy. Finally, it dismissed the newly raised Eighth Amendment claim without prejudice because that claim was not stated in the complaint and the objections did not provide sufficient supporting facts.
Disposition
The court adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety and granted HHC’s motion to dismiss. Except for the tort claims, which were dismissed with prejudice, McTerrell’s claims were dismissed without prejudice. The court granted him leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. If he did not do so, the case would be closed.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.