Barkai v. Nuendorf

Background

Ariel Dan Barkai brought this self-represented lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for constitutional violations by state or local actors. He asserted claims under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments against numerous individual and organizational defendants. He sought damages and injunctive relief.

Barkai filed two motions. In the first, he sought permission to add the Town of Clarkstown as a defendant in this case and in a related case. In the second, he sought to modify or clarify the remedies requested in his amended complaint.

Request to Add Clarkstown

The court denied the motion to add Clarkstown. The proposed claim was based on a municipal-liability theory commonly called a Monell claim, which requires allegations connecting the claimed constitutional injury to a municipal policy, practice, or custom.

The court agreed that Barkai had not adequately connected the allegedly false statements by other defendants to a Town policy or custom. Barkai relied in part on an unsigned and undated Police Department Reform and Reinvention Plan that referred to de-escalation and effective communication in mental-health crisis management. The court said that, even assuming the plan was in force, the plan itself did not appear improper; Barkai alleged only that officers failed to follow it. The court further stated that two officers’ alleged failure to follow the plan did not establish a municipal policy or practice.

The court also reasoned that, even assuming the officers made false statements and that those statements violated the Constitution, the statements allegedly violated the Town’s policy rather than being compelled by it. Thus, the Town could not be considered the force behind the alleged injury based on the allegations presented. The court expressly did not decide whether the alleged statements were constitutional violations.

The court denied Barkai’s request to add Clarkstown in this case and in the related case. It stated that any claims Barkai wished to bring against Clarkstown would have to be filed in a new action.

Request to Amend Remedies

The court granted Barkai’s separate motion to modify or clarify the remedies sought. It found that the proposed changes would not prejudice the defendants because they were already aware of the facts and claims at issue.

Disposition

Judge Karas denied the request to add the Town of Clarkstown and granted the request to amend the remedies sought. Barkai had seven days from issuance of the order to file a second amended complaint reflecting only the remedy-related changes. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the two pending motions and mail the order to Barkai.