Barkai v. Nuendorf

Background

Ariel D. Barkai brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning his detention for a mental-health evaluation under the New York Mental Hygiene Law. He alleged that the defendants violated his rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The defendants identified in the opinion were Anthony Culianos, Glenn Cummings, George Hoehmann, Ray McCullagh, Dispatcher Monihan, Robert Nuendorf, Jeff Wanamaker, and John Doe, identified as other Rockland County District Attorney’s Office employees.

Barkai moved for several forms of relief: referral of his criminal complaint to the U.S. Attorney’s Office; an order preventing the Rockland County District Attorney’s Office and the Rockland County Sheriff’s Office from enforcing New York’s Mental Hygiene Laws in any potential future emergency admission involving him; and changes to the procedures in those laws. The Rockland County and Clarkstown defendants opposed the motion.

Court’s analysis

The court denied the request to refer Barkai’s criminal complaint to federal prosecutors. It explained that the U.S. Attorney’s Office, not the federal court, decides whether and when to file criminal charges, and that the court lacked authority to make the requested referral.

The court also declined to enjoin the Rockland County Sheriff’s Office because it was not a party to the action. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), an injunction generally binds the parties to the action, and the court stated that it could not issue a preliminary injunction against an entity that was not before the court.

As to the Rockland County District Attorney’s Office, the court applied the requirements for a preliminary injunction. Those requirements include showing a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions for litigation, likely irreparable injury without an injunction, a favorable balance of hardships, and consistency with the public interest. The court found that Barkai had offered only speculation that he would be detained and admitted to a hospital for evaluation in the future. It therefore found that he had not shown the required likelihood of success or a sufficiently serious question.

The court separately denied Barkai’s request to change the procedures in the New York Mental Hygiene Law. It relied on decisions holding that New York’s involuntary-commitment scheme is facially constitutional. The court also noted that Section 9.41 does not require a hearing before an evaluation or consultation with the person’s personal physician when probable cause exists for an emergency mental-health evaluation.

Finally, the court found that the balance of hardships weighed against an injunction because such an order could hinder officers’ ability to conduct future welfare checks and limit their discretion if an emergency required hospital admission for psychiatric evaluation. The court also stated that a preliminary injunction is intended to preserve the current situation rather than provide the ultimate relief sought in the lawsuit.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Barkai’s motion in full. The court ordered the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion and mail a copy of the order to Barkai.