Ortiz v. Wilson-Haynes

Background

Shanequa Ortiz, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against certain government actors who violate constitutional rights. She alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment involving medical treatment, conditions of confinement, and excessive force. The allegations arose from two periods when she was held in the custody of the New York City Department of Correction after being held in contempt in a child-custody dispute.

Ortiz alleged that during the first period of custody, on August 25, 2017, correction officers forced her to sit on a defective bench at Rikers Island. She claimed that this caused muscle tightening, difficulty walking, and a need to use crutches for a week. During the second period, on September 7, 2017, she alleged that officers handcuffed her tightly for about three hours, causing loss of circulation, tingling, numbness, and lightheadedness. She also alleged that an officer did not respond when she reported discomfort and that she did not receive medical attention for 24 hours. Ortiz further alleged that she was transported on a bus with male prisoners, was verbally sexually harassed, and witnessed a stabbing.

The court had previously dismissed Ortiz’s earlier complaints but allowed her to file a third amended complaint addressing certain allegations. The defendants moved to dismiss that complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a claim for relief.

Claims Against the Department of Correction

The court dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction because, under the New York City Charter, the Department is a city agency that cannot be sued separately from the City of New York. The opinion describes the Department as a non-suable entity.

Claims Against the City

The court explained that the City could not be held responsible under § 1983 merely because it employed the correction officers. To state a municipal-liability claim, Ortiz had to allege a city policy or custom that caused the constitutional violation. A policy or custom could include a formally adopted policy, actions by officials with policymaking authority, a persistent and widespread practice, or a failure to train or supervise amounting to deliberate indifference.

The court found that Ortiz did not identify a formal City policy, a policymaker, or a widespread practice. It treated her allegations about the bench, handcuffing, and bus transportation as individual incidents and found that she did not allege that similar incidents had occurred repeatedly or that the City had been responsible for similar incidents in the past. The court also found that she did not identify a specific training or supervision deficiency or connect such a deficiency to her alleged injuries.

The court added that, even assuming Ortiz had adequately alleged a policy or custom, she had not plausibly alleged an affirmative causal connection between that policy or custom and the alleged constitutional violations. In the court’s view, the complaint did not show that a City policy or custom was the moving force behind her injuries.

Ruling

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Ortiz’s third amended complaint with prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and close the case.