McTerrell v. Bellview Hospital, Corporation
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:19-cv-04469
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In McTerrell v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Judge Aaron recommended granting HHC’s dismissal motion and dismissing the unidentified defendants’ claims with prejudice.
Sean McTerrell’s claims against New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, the unidentified Jane Doe and John Doe defendants, and any remaining tort or Americans with Disabilities Act claims were recommended for dismissal; the recommendation was subject to review by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.
What happened
McTerrell v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation is a report and recommendation about Sean McTerrell’s claim that hospital employees forcibly medicated him and performed an unwanted medical procedure. McTerrell represented himself and sued under a federal civil-rights law.
The magistrate judge concluded that McTerrell did not adequately allege that the hospital corporation had a policy or custom causing the alleged constitutional violation. He also did not provide information identifying the individual defendants or add facts supporting possible tort and disability-discrimination claims after receiving an opportunity to amend.
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended granting the hospital corporation’s motion to dismiss, dismissing the claims against the individual defendants with prejudice, dismissing the remaining claims with prejudice, and denying further leave to amend. The recommendation was subject to objections and review by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.
The detailed version
- McTerrell v. Bellview Hospital, Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-04469
- Stewart Aaron
- Sept. 17, 2020
Background
Sean McTerrell, representing himself, brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for constitutional violations by state or local actors. He alleged that, while he was in the intensive care unit at Bellevue Hospital from February 22 through February 24, 2008, unidentified employees used excessive force to hold him down, injected him with medication he described as “lethal,” and forced a catheter into his penis. He alleged that these events caused nightmares, panic attacks, headaches, mood swings, and blackouts.
McTerrell sued New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and unidentified Jane Doe and John Doe defendants. HHC moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.
Prior Proceedings
The court had previously recommended dismissal of McTerrell’s initial complaint because he had not alleged an HHC policy or custom that caused a constitutional violation. It also recommended dismissal of the claims against the unidentified individual defendants because McTerrell had not supplied information that would allow HHC or the court to identify them. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer adopted that recommendation and allowed McTerrell to amend.
McTerrell later filed a letter that the court treated as his amended complaint. The court had extended his deadline and warned that the letter would be treated as the amended complaint if he filed nothing further. HHC then moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the rule that a complaint must include enough factual matter to make a claim plausible, while reading a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally. The court also applied the law-of-the-case doctrine, under which an earlier ruling generally continues to govern later stages of the same case unless compelling circumstances justify reconsideration. The court found no intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or clear legal error requiring reconsideration.
As to HHC, the court explained that McTerrell needed to allege that the constitutional violation resulted from an official policy or custom of the city government. The amended complaint alleged that the events breached HHC’s own policies, but it did not allege that HHC had a policy of depriving him of his constitutional rights. The court therefore concluded that the amended complaint did not state a claim against HHC.
As to the individual defendants, McTerrell again failed to provide identifying information. The court therefore concluded that the claims against the Jane Doe and John Doe defendants should again be dismissed.
The court also understood the amended complaint as potentially asserting a tort claim, a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other claims. Those claims had previously been dismissed, and McTerrell had added no facts addressing their deficiencies. The court concluded that those remaining claims should also be dismissed.
Recommendation and Procedural Status
Judge Aaron recommended that HHC’s motion to dismiss be granted; that the claims against the individual defendants be dismissed with prejudice; that the remaining claims be dismissed with prejudice; and that McTerrell not receive further leave to amend. This document was a report and recommendation, not the final ruling by the district judge. The notice stated that the parties had 14 days after service to file objections, and that failing to object could waive appellate review.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.