Liverpool v. The City of New York

Background

Anton Liverpool filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while incarcerated. He alleged that, in June or July 2016, after he was released to the Shilo therapeutic treatment program, a John Doe parole officer inappropriately fondled his buttocks. Liverpool alleged that he reported the incident to other parole officers, Shilo employees, and his criminal defense attorneys, but that no action was taken.

Liverpool later amended his complaint and identified the parole officer as Officer Williams. He named Parole Officer Williams, John Doe Parole Officers #1 and #2, Dr. Jackson at Shilo, and the City of New York as defendants. He sought money damages. The court reviewed the amended complaint under the prisoner-complaint screening requirements, which require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek damages from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Claims Against John Doe Defendants and Dr. Jackson

The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires facts showing each defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. Liverpool alleged that he complained to the other defendants about Williams’s conduct, but he did not allege facts showing that they were responsible for Williams’s actions or supervised Williams. The court therefore dismissed the claims against John Doe #1, John Doe #2, and Dr. Jackson for failure to state a claim, while granting Liverpool leave to replead if additional supporting facts became available.

Claim Against the City of New York

The court held that naming a city employee’s alleged wrongdoing is not enough to establish municipal liability under § 1983. Liverpool needed to allege a city policy, custom, or practice that caused the alleged constitutional violation. Because the complaint contained no facts suggesting that a New York City policy, custom, or practice played a role in the events, the court dismissed the claims against the City of New York for failure to state a claim and granted leave to replead.

Parole Officer Williams

The court found that Liverpool had provided enough information for the New York State Attorney General’s Office to help identify Parole Officer Williams, who was described as Liverpool’s parole officer in June 2016. The court ordered that office to ascertain Williams’s identity, badge number, and address for service within sixty days. After receiving that information, the court stated that it would direct the Clerk of Court to prepare the service materials and deliver them to the U.S. Marshals Service.

Disposition

The court dismissed Liverpool’s claims against the City of New York, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, and Dr. Jackson for failure to state a claim, and granted him leave to replead those claims. It also ordered the New York State Attorney General’s Office to provide information identifying Williams. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The opinion does not decide the truth of Liverpool’s allegation against Williams.