Reid v. City of New York

Background

Cedric Reid, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil-rights statute that permits claims for constitutional violations by government actors. He sued the City of New York, NYC Health and Hospitals, and several named individuals identified in the opinion as City or State defendants. He alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement and inadequate medical treatment.

The defendants previously obtained dismissal of Reid’s original complaint, and the court gave him an opportunity to amend. Reid filed a 35-page amended complaint. The City defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which applies when a complaint does not state a claim on which relief can be granted. The State defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(1), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6).

Magistrate Judge Cott recommended dismissal of Reid’s claims with prejudice. No party objected. Judge Daniels therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and adopted it in full.

Claims Against the City Defendants

The court held that Reid still had not adequately stated a conditions-of-confinement claim based on asbestos exposure. He did not allege how often he physically contacted the wall near asbestos-covered pipes while an alarm was sounding, and his allegation that he traveled through the corridor daily was insufficient to show exposure to an unreasonably high concentration of asbestos. He also did not adequately allege that the City defendants knew or should have known that the exposure created an excessive health risk. The court dismissed this claim.

The court also dismissed Reid’s claim that the City defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by releasing him from NYC Health and Hospitals’ care and transferring him to a New York State correctional facility after he completed five of sixteen scheduled physical-therapy sessions. Although Reid alleged severe pain from a rotator-cuff injury, he did not sufficiently connect the pain to the delay in his sixth therapy appointment. He also did not adequately allege that the City defendants knew, or should have known, that treatment at the State facility was inadequate or that approving the transfer disregarded that risk.

Claims Against the State Defendants

The court dismissed Reid’s claims based on inadequate ventilation and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. The court found that Reid described the smoking habits of other people but did not adequately allege the frequency, intensity, duration, and circumstances of his own exposure. The allegations also did not sufficiently show an unreasonable risk to his health or that the State defendants knew or should have known about an excessive risk.

The court found that Reid’s letters to Superintendent Morton and Acting Commissioner Annucci alleged, at most, negligence rather than knowing disregard of a health or safety risk. Although Superintendent Capra initially denied Reid’s request for a cell with a window, Reid was later reassigned to a windowed cell. The court also held that Nurse Practitioner Monroe and Ferdous’s failure to accommodate the request, without more, did not establish deliberate indifference to medical needs.

Because Reid failed to adequately allege any constitutional violation, the court dismissed his claim against the City defendants based on municipal policies or customs under Monell v. Department of Social Services. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law gross-negligence claims that could be understood as included in the amended complaint. The court therefore did not need to decide whether Reid adequately alleged the State defendants’ personal involvement.

Disposition

Judge Daniels adopted Magistrate Judge Cott’s report and recommendation after finding no clear error. The court granted the City and State defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed Reid’s amended complaint with prejudice. The clerk was directed to close the motions at ECF Nos. 92 and 97.