Jouv'ert v. The City of New York

Background

Rudolpho Enrique Jouv’ert, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights and sought money damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. The complaint was 215 pages long, included 29 pages of exhibits, named 71 defendants, and described events occurring on 21 different dates and in 13 different locations.

Because Jouv’ert was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

Reasons for dismissal

The court held that the complaint failed Rule 8 because it was not short and plain and did not allow the court to determine what claims Jouv’ert intended to bring against each defendant. The court also stated that claims arising from 21 dates and 13 locations appeared not to be properly joined in one action because unrelated claims against different defendants generally must be brought separately.

The court dismissed claims against the New York City Department of Correction because it is a city agency that cannot be sued as a separate entity. It also dismissed the claims against the City of New York because Jouv’ert did not allege facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation.

The claims against Justice A. Drysdale were dismissed on the basis of judicial immunity. The court also dismissed claims against the listed district attorneys and assistant district attorneys to the extent those claims concerned actions within their official duties that were closely connected to criminal proceedings, because prosecutors have immunity from damages suits for such conduct.

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against the Legal Aid Society, attorneys, bus companies and employees, and detainees because the complaint did not allege that these private parties acted under the authority of state law. Claims against Bellevue Hospital were treated as claims against NYC Health + Hospitals and dismissed because Jouv’ert did not allege that a policy, custom, or practice of that public benefit corporation caused a constitutional violation.

The court also found that the complaint did not explain how the named Bellevue Hospital employees violated Jouv’ert’s federal rights. As to Correctional Officer Paul, the court understood the complaint to allege that Paul failed to protect Jouv’ert from assaults by other detainees, but found no facts showing that Paul knew or should have known of a substantial risk of serious harm or recklessly failed to take reasonable protective measures.

As to NYPD Detectives Robert Bracero, Douglas Macewen, Raymond McCann, Foy, O’Rourke, and Jeno Maldonado, the court understood the complaint to assert false-arrest claims. The court found the allegations insufficient because Jouv’ert did not provide the arrest date, describe the circumstances leading to the arrest, identify the charges, or explain the status of the criminal proceedings.

Disposition and amendment

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. It dismissed all claims against the City of New York; the New York City Department of Correction; Justice A. Drysdale; the named prosecutors and assistant prosecutors; the Legal Aid Society and named attorneys; the private bus companies and their named employees; Bellevue Hospital; and the listed Department of Correction detainees.

The court granted Jouv’ert 60 days to file an amended complaint asserting federal claims only against the named NYPD detectives, Correctional Officer Paul, and the Bellevue Hospital employees. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so any facts or claims Jouv’ert wished to preserve had to be repeated. The court stated that claims against the dismissed defendants could not be cured by amendment and would be summarily dismissed if reasserted. No summons would issue at that time, and the court kept the action open until judgment was entered.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.