Liverpool v. The City of New York

Background

Anton Liverpool, who was incarcerated in Rhode Island when he filed the case, sued the City of New York, Officer Surpris, unidentified officers, and supervisory officials. He proceeded without a lawyer and invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state or local officials for certain constitutional violations.

Liverpool alleged that on March 23, 2018, while detained at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island, he was handcuffed, shackled, and placed on a New York City Department of Correction bus for a court appearance. He alleged that Officer Surpris accelerated while entering the sally port of the Manhattan Detention Center, causing the bus to hit the building. Liverpool alleged injuries to his head, back, and neck, including areas still recovering from an earlier bus accident. He also alleged that four officers at the detention center failed to maintain a safe entrance.

Federal Claims

The court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires courts to review prisoner complaints against governmental entities or employees and dismiss claims that are legally insufficient or seek relief from an immune defendant.

The court explained that ordinary negligence by a correctional official does not establish a federal constitutional violation under § 1983. It also explained that a pretrial detainee must allege an objectively serious risk of harm and facts showing that an official intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable care despite knowing, or having reason to know, of an excessive risk to safety.

The court concluded that Liverpool’s allegation that the bus driver accelerated too much while entering the detention center sounded in negligence. It found that Liverpool had not alleged facts showing that any defendant intentionally imposed the dangerous condition or recklessly failed to reduce a known excessive risk. The court therefore dismissed Liverpool’s § 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to a serious risk of harm. The opinion does not add a with-prejudice or without-prejudice designation to that dismissal.

State-Law Claims and Jurisdiction

Liverpool did not invoke diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires citizens of different states and more than $75,000 in controversy. The court found that he had not alleged facts establishing his domicile or the citizenship of the other parties, so it could not exercise diversity jurisdiction.

After dismissing the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its discretionary power to hear related state-law claims. The court dismissed Liverpool’s state-law claims without prejudice to his repleading them in state court.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Although the court found no indication that Liverpool could amend the complaint to state a federal claim, it granted him leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days if he could plead facts supporting a federal claim. Alternatively, he could amend to invoke diversity jurisdiction by alleging citizenship different from that of every defendant and facts establishing the required jurisdictional basis. The court stated that, if Liverpool did not amend within 30 days, it would enter judgment dismissing the action as described in the order.

The order directed the Clerk of Court to mail Liverpool a copy of the order and note service on the docket. Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the order.