Milhouse v. The City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-08980
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Milhouse v. City of New York, Judge Swain dismissed Milhouse’s civil-rights claims, declined state-law jurisdiction, and denied his motion as moot.
Muhammad E. Milhouse’s claims against The City of New York, the named New York City Police Department personnel, and the more than 250 additional defendants listed in the complaint.
What happened
In Muhammad E. Milhouse v. The City of New York, et al., Muhammad E. Milhouse alleged that New York City police officers failed to investigate his report of an assault, failed to arrest the alleged perpetrator, and violated his civil rights. He also sought criminal prosecutions and referred to events at a hotel isolation site that were the subject of other pending cases.
The court dismissed the claims based on the alleged failure to investigate or make an arrest because they did not state a claim for relief. It dismissed claims seeking criminal prosecutions for lack of federal jurisdiction, and dismissed without prejudice any claims arising from the hotel isolation-site events so Milhouse could seek to add them in the pending related case. The court also declined to hear possible state-law claims and denied Milhouse’s Notice of Motion as moot.
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied leave to amend this complaint, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and denied fee-free status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Milhouse v. The City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-08980
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 6, 2022
Background
Muhammad E. Milhouse appeared without a lawyer and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his federal civil rights. The defendants included The City of New York; New York City Police Department Special Victims Unit Detective Joseph Roudon; Detective Sergeant Rodriguez; Integrity Control Officer Lieutenant Solla; a John/Jane Doe detective; and more than 250 additional defendants.
Milhouse alleged that police failed to investigate his report that he had been raped, assaulted, and drugged, and failed to arrest the alleged perpetrator. He also described alleged assaults at a New York City Department of Homeless Services COVID-19 isolation site. The opinion states that claims concerning those events were already part of two consolidated actions pending in the same district. Milhouse requested, among other relief, that the court order the arrest of people he alleged had harmed him.
Court’s Analysis and Rulings
The court reviewed the complaint under the screening rules for cases filed without prepayment of fees. Those rules require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim for relief, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that, although it must read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, the complaint still must contain enough facts to make a claim plausible.
Failure to Investigate or Make an Arrest
The court dismissed Milhouse’s Section 1983 claims against the City and the individual police officers based on the alleged failure to investigate or arrest. It held that government officials generally have no federal constitutional duty to investigate a person’s complaint or protect that person from harm. The court found that neither recognized exception applied: Milhouse’s allegations did not show that the state had taken him into custody or that government officials had affirmatively created or increased the danger.
The court also noted that Milhouse did not allege facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation. It dismissed these claims for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
Requests for Criminal Prosecution
The court dismissed any claims seeking a criminal investigation, arrest, or prosecution of people Milhouse alleged had harmed him. A private person cannot initiate a criminal prosecution in federal court, and neither the plaintiff nor the court can direct prosecutors to bring criminal charges. The court dismissed these claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Milhouse lacked standing to seek the criminal prosecution of others.
Additional Defendants
The court dismissed without prejudice the claims against the more than 250 defendants listed near the end of the complaint. Milhouse did not allege facts showing that those defendants were personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations. The court explained that a person cannot be held liable under Section 1983 merely because that person employs or supervises someone accused of wrongdoing.
Claims Related to the Isolation Site
The court stated that it was unclear whether Milhouse intended to assert claims directly arising from the alleged events at the COVID-19 isolation site. To the extent he did, those claims were dismissed without prejudice to his filing an amended complaint in the pending lead action, No. 22-CV-2934, to the extent permitted by the federal amendment rule.
State-Law Claims and Other Dispositions
After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims. The court denied Milhouse’s Notice of Motion as moot. It also denied leave to amend this complaint because it concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment, while noting that Milhouse could seek to add allegations concerning the isolation-site events in the pending related action.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.