Barkai v. Nuendorf

Background

Ariel D. Barkai sued Anthony Culianos, Glenn Cummings, George Hoehmann, Ray McCullagh, Dispatcher Monihan, Robert Nuendorf, Jeff Wanamaker, and John Doe under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The lawsuit arose from Barkai’s detention for a mental-health evaluation under the New York Mental Hygiene Law. Barkai alleged violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The order addressed Barkai’s motion seeking three forms of relief: referral of his criminal complaint to the U.S. Attorney’s Office; an injunction 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 future emergency admission involving him; and changes to the procedures established by those laws.

Court’s Analysis

The court denied the request for a prosecution referral because the court does not have authority to decide whether federal criminal charges should be filed or to refer a citizen’s purported criminal complaint to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

The court declined to enjoin the Rockland County Sheriff’s Office because it was not a party to the lawsuit. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), an injunction generally binds the parties to the action.

As to the Rockland County District Attorney’s Office, the court applied the requirements for a preliminary injunction, which is an extraordinary order intended to preserve the existing situation while a case proceeds. The party seeking that relief must show, among other things, a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable injury without the injunction, and a favorable balance of hardships. The court found that Barkai offered only speculation that he would be detained and admitted to a hospital for evaluation in the future. It therefore concluded that he had not shown the required likelihood of irreparable harm or a sufficient merits showing.

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

The court further found that an injunction could hinder officers’ ability to conduct future welfare checks and could remove discretion in an emergency requiring psychiatric evaluation. Those considerations weighed against the requested relief.

Disposition

The court denied Barkai’s motion in full. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion and mail a copy of the order to Barkai.