Gabriel Massey-Smith v. The City of New York

Background

Gabriel Massey-Smith, who was incarcerated under the supervision of the New York City Department of Correction, brought this civil-rights case under Section 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state or local officials for constitutional violations. He represented himself.

The remaining claims in his fourth amended complaint were: (1) claims that Officer Williams and former Officer Blades failed to protect him from a January 9, 2015 gang assault; (2) a similar failure-to-protect claim against Officer Camacho; (3) a federal excessive-force claim against former Captain O’Hara; and (4) a claim that O’Hara was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs.

Massey-Smith alleged that Williams and Blades were responsible for watching the area during the gang assault and did not intervene. He alleged that Camacho interviewed him after the assault. He also alleged that O’Hara used force and sprayed people, including him, and was involved in moving him to an area with air conditioning because he was heat sensitive.

Legal standard

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state enough facts to support a legally plausible claim. Because Massey-Smith was representing himself, the court read his allegations liberally but still required the complaint to state a plausible claim for relief.

Court’s analysis

Claims against Williams and Blades. Section 1983 claims arising in New York generally have a three-year limitations period. Because Massey-Smith filed the fourth amended complaint on April 5, 2019, claims accruing before April 5, 2016 were barred unless they related back to an earlier filing. The alleged failure to protect occurred on January 9, 2015. The court found that Massey-Smith did not show that the allegation related back to an earlier filing and that no timely filing contained a similar allegation. The court therefore dismissed these claims as time barred.

Claim against Camacho. The court held that Massey-Smith did not allege Camacho’s personal involvement in a constitutional violation. The complaint said only that Camacho investigated or interviewed Massey-Smith after the assault. It did not allege misconduct by Camacho during or after the interview. The court therefore dismissed the claim against Camacho.

Claims against O’Hara. Massey-Smith sent a letter stating that O’Hara could be dismissed. The court treated this as a withdrawal of the claims against O’Hara and dismissed them. The court also stated that the complaint did not state a claim against O’Hara: the excessive-force claim was time barred, and the allegations concerning Massey-Smith’s heat sensitivity reflected O’Hara’s acknowledgment of and adjustment to that condition rather than deliberate indifference to medical needs.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion and the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissals were with or without prejudice.