Eisenberg v. The County of Westchester

Background

Michael Eisenberg alleged that he was a pretrial detainee at the Westchester County Jail. He claimed that Jahliv Niles attacked him in a recreation room on May 19, 2020, after unidentified correction officers brought Niles into the room and left the two inmates there without an officer present. Eisenberg also alleged that the officers delayed responding to his requests for medical care and forced him to walk into a hospital despite his claimed injuries.

Eisenberg sued the County of Westchester, Joseph K. Spano in his capacity as Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Corrections, Sergeant Jeffry Deigan, Jahliv Niles, and unidentified correction officers. His claims included claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows suits for certain violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority, as well as New York state-law claims. The County Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint plausibly states a legal claim.

Claims Against Sergeant Deigan

The court held that Eisenberg did not plausibly allege Sergeant Deigan’s personal involvement in either the failure-to-protect claim or the medical-care claim. Eisenberg alleged that Deigan arrived after the attack had begun, but did not allege that Deigan participated in decisions to bring Niles to the recreation room, leave him there, or mix high-risk and low-risk inmates. Eisenberg also did not allege specific facts connecting Deigan to the alleged delay or obstruction of medical care. The court therefore dismissed the § 1983 claims against Deigan.

Claims Against Commissioner Spano

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against Commissioner Spano because Eisenberg sued him only in his official capacity as Commissioner. The court explained that official-capacity claims against a county official are redundant when the County itself is also sued. The court therefore did not need to resolve the County Defendants’ separate argument that Spano lacked personal involvement.

Claims Against Westchester County

The court held that Eisenberg had not plausibly alleged that a County policy or custom caused his injuries. A municipality may be liable under § 1983 when an official policy or a sufficiently widespread practice causes a constitutional violation. Eisenberg relied in part on a 2009 Department of Justice report and a 2015 consent decree concerning conditions at the jail.

The court concluded that the report did not identify the same kinds of failure-to-protect and medical-care problems alleged by Eisenberg. It also held that the 2009 report was too far removed from the 2020 events to support an inference that the jail’s conditions remained the same. The court treated Eisenberg’s other allegations about prior similar incidents, complaints, and lawsuits as conclusory. It therefore dismissed the § 1983 claims against Westchester County.

Other Federal Claims and State-Law Claims

The court stated that Eisenberg’s references to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were abandoned because he did not respond to the County Defendants’ arguments seeking dismissal of those claims.

After dismissing the federal claims against the County Defendants, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide related state-law claims after the federal claims are gone. The court ordered the state-law claims remanded to Supreme Court, Westchester County. It expressed no opinion on the merits of those state-law claims or on Eisenberg’s claims against Niles and the unidentified correction officers.

Disposition

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti granted the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Clerk was instructed to remand the case to Supreme Court, Westchester County, close the case, and terminate the motion. The opinion did not specify that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.