Holmes v. Department of Homeless Services

Background

Benjamin Holmes, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the Department of Homeless Services and other defendants over security screenings at the entrance of a homeless shelter where he resided. He alleged that on July 23, 2019, Officer Garcia scanned him with a magnetic wand before he entered the shelter on Ward’s Island. Holmes alleged that the scan caused internal bleeding, chest pain, red urine, and other medical complications. He also alleged that Officer Garcia and another officer performed additional scans on November 8 and 9, 2019.

Holmes further alleged that Officer Garcia grabbed his hand, causing his motorized scooter to rise into the air and causing Holmes to fear for his life. The court construed these allegations as potential claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by people acting under state authority.

In an earlier order, the court dismissed claims against several defendants and construed claims against the Department of Homeless Services as claims against the City of New York. The City then moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Holmes did not oppose the motion, but the court stated that it still had to examine whether the complaint legally stated a claim.

Analysis

Constitutional claims. The court held that the amended complaint did not identify a specific constitutional right, privilege, or protection that the defendants had violated. It also held that Holmes did not plausibly allege that the magnetic wand harmed him. Although he alleged hospital and cardiologist visits, he did not allege that those visits showed an injury caused by the wand or provide other factual support beyond his own beliefs.

The court treated the allegation that Officer Garcia grabbed Holmes’s hand as a possible excessive-force claim under § 1983 and analyzed it under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard. Even accepting Holmes’s account that Garcia grabbed his hand and caused the scooter to rise, the court held that Holmes had not alleged force that was sufficiently serious or harmful to support a constitutional claim. The court found that his alleged fear for his life, without a claimed cognizable injury or other sufficient harm, was not enough.

Municipal liability. The court also held that Holmes had not adequately alleged a claim against the City of New York. A municipality can be liable under § 1983 only when an official policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional injury. Because Holmes had not plausibly alleged a constitutional violation, the municipal-liability claim failed. The court further held that, even assuming a constitutional violation, Holmes had not identified a specific City policy, custom, or practice concerning security procedures at homeless shelters that caused the alleged harm.

Possible state-law claims. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims that might be inferred from the amended complaint. The opinion states that Holmes did not explicitly allege state-law violations.

Disposition

The court granted the City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings for failure to state a claim for relief. The court did not immediately terminate the case. Instead, it gave Holmes 60 days, until June 9, 2021, to file an amended complaint containing allegations supporting his constitutional claims. The court stated that it would terminate the case if he failed to file a timely amended complaint. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying appellate filing fees for purposes of an appeal.