Talal v. NYC Health + Hospital

Background

Najma J Ibn Talal proceeded without a lawyer and without prepaying court fees. She alleged that two unidentified people assaulted her on November 20, 2019, causing severe injuries and loss of consciousness. She further alleged that unspecified people delayed emergency transportation, that she was shackled and handcuffed, and that she was taken to Lincoln Medical Center, an NYC Health + Hospital hospital.

According to the complaint, a doctor at the hospital removed Talal’s hijab without her consent and told her she had to remove her clothing so he could examine her body and document her injuries. Talal considered that requirement unnecessary and inappropriate because she said her visible injuries were to her wrist and head. She left without receiving treatment. She sought $20 million in damages and asserted violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Court’s analysis

The court construed the complaint as asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. To state such a claim, Talal had to allege both a violation of a federal right and action under state law. The court explained that NYC Health + Hospital is a public benefit corporation and that it and its employees are state actors for purposes of Section 1983.

But because Talal sued only NYC Health + Hospital, she also had to allege that the corporation itself caused the constitutional violation through a policy, custom, or practice. The court found that her allegations described conduct by an individual employee and did not allege any policy, custom, or practice of NYC Health + Hospital that caused a violation. The court therefore concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief. It did not address Talal’s assault claims because she did not name the individuals associated with the alleged assaults as defendants.

The court also noted that Talal had been given an opportunity to amend similar claims in a prior related proceeding, No. 1:22-CV-1500, but had not cured the identified defects. It declined to give her another opportunity to amend.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court terminated all other pending matters, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith; it therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.