Hill v. NYC Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene

Background

Vivian Hill, who was proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) and New York State’s Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS). She asserted claims connected to an Assisted Outpatient Treatment plan and proceedings in which MHLS represented her. She sought an emergency order barring DOHMH from enforcing the plan or interacting with her, an order barring MHLS from representing her, and appointment of a free lawyer.

Hill alleged that, since 2017, the defendants had withheld her medical records, denied requests concerning medical records and patients’ rights, denied discovery, restricted support from an agent, and interfered with legal documents and medical treatment. She also alleged that attorneys connected with the defendants claimed to represent her without permission. Hill said that defendants discriminated and retaliated against her for filing complaints and seeking relief from racial discrimination based on her being Afro-American, elderly, and partially disabled.

Legal standards

Because Hill had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that pleadings filed without a lawyer receive a generous reading, but still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Claims against MHLS

The court treated Hill’s claims against MHLS as claims under Section 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. It explained that the Constitution generally prevents federal lawsuits against a state, its agencies, and entities functioning as arms of the state unless the state has waived that protection or Congress has removed it. The court concluded that MHLS was protected by this state immunity because the New York State Office of Court Administration is an arm of the state. It therefore dismissed Hill’s Section 1983 claims against MHLS and denied her request to bar MHLS from representing her.

Claims against DOHMH

The court explained that a municipality can be liable under Section 1983 only when its own policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation. It is not enough to allege wrongdoing by an individual employee or agent.

The court found that Hill had not stated facts describing what DOHMH did or explaining how its conduct violated one of her constitutional rights. For example, her allegation that DOHMH employees failed to establish a relationship with her did not identify a municipal policy, custom, or practice that caused a constitutional violation. Her allegations of discrimination and retaliation also lacked facts describing the alleged conduct. The court therefore found that Hill had not stated a claim against DOHMH or shown that she was entitled to an order concerning her Assisted Outpatient Treatment plan.

Leave to amend and other requests

Because Hill was proceeding without a lawyer and might be able to state facts supporting a claim against DOHMH, the court granted her 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must identify the relevant people, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide approximate dates and locations, describe her injuries, and state the relief sought. It will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so Hill must repeat any facts or claims she wants the court to consider.

The court denied Hill’s requests for injunctive relief and appointment of free counsel. It directed the clerk to terminate the two motions concerning injunctive relief. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

Disposition

The court dismissed Hill’s claims against MHLS under the Eleventh Amendment, denied her request for injunctive relief, granted her leave to file an amended complaint against DOHMH within 60 days, and denied her request for appointment of free counsel. The order warned that if she did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.