Ann v. Wiviott

Background

Vivian Hill Ann filed the action under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction and proceeded without a lawyer. She alleged discrimination, disability-related mistreatment, retaliation, denial of medical records, violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), assaults, break-ins, property destruction, and unlawful involuntary hospitalizations.

Ann alleged that Jerry Gloster, a social worker employed by the Bridge, forced pills into her mouth on July 3, 2019, causing her to lose consciousness, fall, and suffer what she described as brain damage. She also alleged that members of the New York City Sheriff’s Office repeatedly broke down her door, took her into custody, and hospitalized her. She claimed that these actions occurred without proper legal authority and in coordination with the Bridge.

Screening of the Complaint

Because Ann was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court screened her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That provision requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that self-represented pleadings are read liberally, but still must contain enough facts to make a claim plausible and satisfy the requirement for a short and plain statement.

The court construed Ann’s constitutional claims as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A § 1983 claim requires a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law—that is, using governmental authority or otherwise qualifying as a state actor.

Rulings on the Defendants

The court dismissed Ann’s HIPAA claims because HIPAA does not create a private right of action. In other words, the statute does not authorize an individual to sue directly for an alleged HIPAA violation.

The court dismissed Ann’s § 1983 claims against the New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene because a New York City agency generally is not a suable entity. The court stated that Ann could instead name the City of New York and allege facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation.

The court found that the Bridge and Susan Wiviott were private entities or persons and that Ann had not alleged facts showing they acted as state actors. Because her allegations suggested that the Bridge and Wiviott might have been involved in involuntary hospitalizations carried out under a state-court order, however, the court granted leave to amend to allege facts supporting state action.

The court also found that Ann had not alleged facts showing that a policy, custom, or practice of the City of New York—or of the Bridge if it could be shown to be a state actor—caused a constitutional violation. The court granted leave to amend those claims.

Involuntary Hospitalization and Individual Defendants

The court recognized that involuntary hospitalization significantly restricts liberty and generally requires due process. It described New York’s assisted-outpatient-treatment law, commonly called Kendra’s Law, and explained that the law provides procedures for court-ordered treatment and, in some circumstances, transportation to a hospital for observation, care, and treatment.

The court understood Ann to allege that sheriff’s deputies broke down her door, took her into custody, and hospitalized her without legal authority and in violation of Kendra’s Law. The court found the complaint unclear about how Ann was denied due process and granted leave to amend with facts sufficient to state that claim.

The court further found that Ann had not named the individual deputies who allegedly took her into custody and hospitalized her. It granted leave to amend so she could identify those individuals, or use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” if she did not know their names, and allege each person’s direct and personal involvement.

Requests for Immediate Relief and Counsel

The court denied Ann’s application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. It stated that the deficiencies in the complaint made it unclear whether she was likely to succeed on her claims or whether the claims presented sufficiently serious questions for immediate relief.

The court denied Ann’s application for the court to request pro bono counsel without prejudice to submitting another application later, after complying with the order. The court explained that the case was at too early a stage to assess its merits.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Ann 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must include the claims and facts she wants the court to consider. The court directed her to identify the defendants, describe what each defendant did, provide relevant dates and locations, describe her injuries, and state the relief requested.

The court dismissed Ann’s HIPAA claims and her § 1983 claims against the New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene. It denied the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and denied the pro bono-counsel application without prejudice. It granted leave to amend and stated that failure to file a compliant amended complaint within 60 days, absent good cause, would lead to dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.