Betancourt v. United States

Background

Alberto Betancourt, appearing without a lawyer, sued the United States and numerous federal, state, city, hospital, attorney, and judicial defendants. The court treated him as the sole plaintiff, even though the caption also named his deceased mother, Ada Rodriguez. Betancourt asserted claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Section 1983, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Administrative Procedure Act, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, federal criminal statutes, and state law. He sought damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.

Betancourt alleged that he and Rodriguez had volunteered at Ground Zero after September 11, 2001, and later received treatment through Mount Sinai Hospital’s World Trade Center health program. He alleged that Rodriguez was misdiagnosed and inadequately treated before her death following surgery for colon cancer and a pulmonary embolism. He also alleged that his own medical services were terminated or denied, that he was removed from the hospital while Rodriguez was having surgery, and that the defendants discriminated against him and Rodriguez because they were Hispanic. He separately challenged events in a pending New York state-court case concerning Rodriguez’s death.

Claims on Behalf of Rodriguez’s Estate

The court dismissed without prejudice the claims Betancourt asserted on behalf of Rodriguez’s estate. Federal law generally allows a person to represent only himself in federal court unless that person is a lawyer. An exception may apply when a person is the estate’s only beneficiary and is effectively litigating only his own interests. Betancourt did not allege that he was a lawyer or the estate’s sole beneficiary.

Federal Defendants and Federal Claims

The court dismissed claims against the United States, Congress, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Trade Center Health Program, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and several federal officials. Sovereign immunity generally prevents lawsuits against the federal government, its agencies, and federal officials sued in their official capacities unless immunity has been waived.

The court held that Betancourt did not allege that he completed the administrative claim process required before bringing a Federal Tort Claims Act case. He did not allege that he filed a damages claim with the appropriate federal agency and received a final written decision, or that six months had passed without such a decision. The court therefore dismissed the Federal Tort Claims Act claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court also dismissed the Administrative Procedure Act claims, including claims related to Title VI, because Betancourt did not identify a final federal agency action for review. The Administrative Procedure Act does not authorize monetary damages. The court further stated that the James Zadroga Act did not provide a basis for jurisdiction over these claims because it does not waive sovereign immunity and expressly bars judicial review.

State Defendants and Judicial Defendants

The court dismissed Betancourt’s Section 1983 claims against New York State, the New York State Legislature, the New York State Department of Health, the New York State Unified Court System, and the two state judges in their official capacities. The court held that the Eleventh Amendment generally protects states, state agencies, and state officials sued in their official capacities from these claims, and that New York had not waived that protection for the claims at issue.

The court separately dismissed the Section 1983 claims against Justices Joan Madden and Eileen A. Rokower in their personal capacities. Judicial immunity protects judges from damages claims based on actions taken as part of their judicial duties, and the court found that Betancourt’s claims arose from the judges’ handling of his pending state case. The court dismissed those claims as barred by judicial immunity and as frivolous. It also explained that the requested injunction against the judges was unavailable under Section 1983 on the facts alleged.

Federal Officials, City Defendants, and Private Defendants

The court construed the complaint as asserting damages claims under Bivens against HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, and Acting World Trade Center Health Program Administrator John Howard. A Bivens claim is a damages claim against a federal official for violating constitutional rights. The court dismissed those claims because Betancourt did not allege that those officials were directly and personally involved in the alleged violations.

The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims against the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene because that department is not a separate suable entity. It treated the complaint as also naming the City of New York, but dismissed the claims against the City because Betancourt did not allege that a city policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation.

The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims against the remaining hospital-related defendants, a hospital employee, a private law firm and attorney, and unidentified defendants. Section 1983 requires conduct under color of state law, meaning conduct fairly attributable to the state. The court found that Betancourt alleged no facts showing that these private defendants acted as state actors.

Title VI, Criminal, Injunctive, and State-Law Claims

The court dismissed Title VI claims against nonfederal defendants arising from events on or before Rodriguez’s death on November 16, 2015, because the claims were filed after the applicable three-year limitations period and Betancourt alleged no basis for extending that period. The court also dismissed any Title VI claims based on an alleged ongoing denial of treatment because Betancourt alleged only that he believed the defendants discriminated against him based on race, color, or national origin, without facts showing intentional discrimination.

The court dismissed Betancourt’s claims under federal criminal statutes because a private person cannot initiate or control a federal criminal prosecution. It also dismissed the claims seeking intervention in the pending state-court case under the Anti-Injunction Act, which generally prohibits federal courts from stopping state-court proceedings unless one of three statutory exceptions applies. The court found that Betancourt had not shown that an exception applied.

After dismissing all federal claims within its original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims; the court stated that it generally declines that authority when the federal claims have been dismissed early in the case.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action. The claims asserted on behalf of Rodriguez’s estate were dismissed without prejudice. The court denied Betancourt leave to amend because it found that the complaint’s defects could not be cured by amendment. It denied his pending motion for appointed counsel and an expert medical witness as moot. Finally, it certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.