Evans v. Samaritan Daytop Village

Background

Jeniere K. Evans, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York and Samaritan Daytop Village. He alleged false arrest, false imprisonment, harassment, and emotional distress arising from his arrest in July 2021 while he was residing at a shelter facility operated by Samaritan Daytop Village.

According to the allegations considered by the court, Evans had a verbal and physical altercation with a roommate after Evans kicked their room door. Evans alleged that the roommate pushed or shoulder-bumped him, after which Evans punched the roommate in the face. Shelter staff called the police, and officers arrested Evans and detained him at the 68th Precinct. Evans claimed that witnesses and police officers misrepresented the facts and that the charges were later dismissed for lack of evidence. He alleged reputational harm, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, and distress.

Samaritan Daytop Village filed an answer. The City of New York moved to dismiss the claims against it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Municipal Liability

Under § 1983, a municipality may be liable when its own policy or custom causes a violation of federal rights. A city generally cannot be held responsible solely because it employs the person alleged to have committed the violation. A plaintiff may allege a municipal policy or custom through, among other things, an officially adopted policy, actions by officials responsible for municipal policymaking, a widespread and consistent practice, or deliberately inadequate training or supervision.

The court held that Evans’s complaint did not allege an unconstitutional policy or custom by New York City. In his opposition to the motion, Evans argued that a police officer had failed to follow New York Criminal Procedure Law § 140.10 and had arrested him without sufficient reasonable cause. But the court found that Evans did not identify any city policy or custom connected to that alleged failure. The court also explained that a single alleged incident of unconstitutional conduct generally does not establish municipal liability, absent facts tying the incident to an existing unconstitutional municipal policy attributable to a policymaker.

Because Evans failed to allege a municipal policy or custom that caused his injuries, the court dismissed the complaint as to New York City. The court expressly did not decide whether Evans had adequately alleged an underlying constitutional violation.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court considered whether Evans should be allowed to amend his complaint. Although courts ordinarily give a self-represented plaintiff at least one opportunity to amend when the allegations suggest that a valid claim might be stated, amendment is not required when it would be futile. The court treated Evans’s opposition as effectively providing another pleading and concluded that neither the complaint nor the opposition stated, or indicated that Evans could state, a viable municipal-liability claim.

The court therefore did not grant Evans leave to amend his pleadings as to New York City. It granted the City’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, directed the Clerk to dismiss New York City from the action, and directed the Clerk to close the pending motion. The opinion does not decide the claims against Samaritan Daytop Village.