Massey v. Smart

Background

Tyrone Massey brought this pro se action against the City of New York and Captain Smart, a New York City correctional officer. Massey alleged that he suffered a seizure while detained at the Manhattan Detention Complex on October 29, 2020. He alleged that he injured his head, began hearing voices and seeing things, and began cutting his leg. According to Massey, Captain Smart walked by his cell, declined to provide medical care, and told him to “keep cutting [him]self.” Massey later wrote a message in blood asking for medical care and received medical treatment several hours afterward.

Massey also alleged that City employees regularly ignored inmates’ medical needs, that the City failed to train and supervise its officers, and that the grievance process did not adequately hold officers accountable. He brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City, alleging that it maintained a policy of denying medical care and failed to adequately train Captain Smart. The claims against Captain Smart were in discovery when the City filed its motion to dismiss.

Legal standard and analysis

The City moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court accepted the factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion and interpreted Massey’s pro se submissions liberally. Even so, a pro se complaint must allege enough facts to make the claim plausible.

The court treated Massey’s Eighth Amendment allegation as a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because Massey was a pretrial detainee. The court explained that a municipality cannot be held responsible merely because one of its employees allegedly violated someone’s constitutional rights. To establish municipal liability under § 1983, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that a municipal policy caused the constitutional injury.

The court considered Massey’s allegations under two possible policy theories: a widespread and persistent practice of constitutional violations, and inadequate employee training. The court found neither theory sufficiently supported. Massey referred to lawsuits and grievances involving alleged failures to provide medical care, but he did not provide enough information about the lawsuits or their outcomes. The grievances and medical records also indicated that he was seen by medical practitioners after the incidents, although he believed the care was insufficient. The court concluded that he had not shown a widespread practice of denying medical care that was sufficiently pervasive to put the City on notice.

As to training, Massey did not describe the City’s training procedures or explain how they were defective. The court reasoned that his allegation that employees failed to follow written procedures suggested a problem with individual officers rather than with City policy or training. He also did not allege facts showing that a municipal policymaker knew or should have known that more or different training was needed and deliberately failed to provide it. The court therefore found that his conclusory training allegations could not survive dismissal.

The court separately addressed any negligence claim that could be inferred from Massey’s allegation that Captain Smart breached a duty of care. Under New York law, a person bringing a tort claim against the City must first file a notice describing the nature of the claim. Because Massey did not allege that he filed the required notice, the court dismissed any implied negligence claim against the City.

Disposition

Judge Denise Cote granted the City’s motion to dismiss Massey’s claims against it. The court also dismissed any implied negligence claim against the City. The opinion does not state that these dismissals were with or without prejudice. The claims against Captain Smart were not resolved by this order and remained in discovery.