Torres v. City of New York
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-06332
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In Torres v. City of New York, Judge Ramos granted the hospital defendants’ dismissal motion and denied Torres’s sanctions motion.
Wilfredo Torres; New York City Health and Hospitals; Steven Issley; Arkaprava Deb; the defense counsel and law firm targeted by Torres’s sanctions motion; and the remaining defendants, whose claims and participation in the case were not dismissed by this order.
What happened
Torres v. City of New York concerns Wilfredo Torres’s claims that defendants violated his federal and constitutional rights when police entered his apartment and took him to Bellevue Hospital. Torres, who had no lawyer, sued under a federal civil-rights law and sought damages and an order concerning the hospital’s alleged conduct.
The court granted New York City Health and Hospitals and Steven Issley’s motion to dismiss the claims against them. It also dismissed Torres’s claims against Arkaprava Deb without prejudice. The court denied Torres’s motion for sanctions and to disbar defense counsel. The case continued against some other defendants, including the City and several police defendants.
Judge Edgardo Ramos ruled that Torres’s complaint did not explain what the hospital defendants personally did, what medical care he received, or how any care was constitutionally inadequate. The complaint also did not allege a hospital policy causing a violation or facts supporting false arrest at the hospital. The court dismissed the remaining state-law claims against the hospital defendants after dismissing the federal claims.
The detailed version
- Torres v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-06332
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 17, 2023
Background
Wilfredo Torres, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law, based on events at his apartment and Bellevue Hospital between February 27 and February 28, 2019. He alleged that police entered his apartment without a warrant, arrested him on a misdemeanor charge, and transported him through the police precinct, court, and Bellevue’s psychiatric ward. He described the events as “32 hours of torture.”
The pending dismissal motion was filed by New York City Health and Hospitals and Steven Issley, M.D., referred to in the opinion as the Hospital Defendants. The complaint mistakenly named Steven Lasley; the opinion states that the defendant’s actual name is Steven Issley. The Hospital Defendants sought dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. They also asked the court to dismiss the claims against Arkaprava Deb, M.D., under Rule 4(m), which addresses failure to serve a defendant. Torres moved for sanctions and to disbar prior defense counsel, Doreen Dufficy.
Claims and Analysis
The court first considered a possible claim that the Hospital Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Torres’s serious medical needs. The complaint alleged only that Torres was taken to Bellevue’s psychiatric ward and later returned there. It did not identify who brought him to Bellevue, who treated him, what care he received, or whether he suffered a serious deprivation of medical care. The court also found that the complaint did not adequately identify each defendant’s conduct or allege the Hospital Defendants’ personal involvement in a constitutional violation. The court therefore dismissed this claim.
The court also dismissed any claim seeking to hold New York City Health and Hospitals liable for a constitutional violation caused by a municipal policy or custom. The complaint did not identify such a policy or custom or connect one to an injury. The court explained that the alleged single incident was insufficient to establish municipal liability.
To the extent Torres claimed that the Hospital Defendants falsely arrested him at Bellevue, the court dismissed that claim as well. Although involuntary confinement in a hospital can constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, the complaint alleged that police arrested Torres before taking him to Bellevue and did not allege that the Hospital Defendants participated in that arrest. It also did not state that he received treatment or diagnoses during his Bellevue visits.
After dismissing the federal claims against the Hospital Defendants, the court dismissed Torres’s remaining state-law claims against them rather than adjudicating those claims. The court also dismissed all claims against Deb without prejudice. Deb was not mentioned in the complaint’s factual allegations, and the court found no arguable legal or factual basis for the claims. The court added that the claims would otherwise be subject to dismissal under Rule 4(m) because Deb had not been served despite multiple court orders.
The court denied Torres’s sanctions and disbarment motion. It found that the motion relied on speculative and conclusory allegations and did not provide credible facts supporting sanctions against the law firm or Dufficy.
Disposition
The Hospital Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. Torres’s claims against Deb were dismissed without prejudice. Torres’s motion for sanctions and to disbar defense counsel was denied. The court directed Torres, the City of New York, Neil Veras, Patricia de Jesus, Dioasky Pena, and Mateusz Hader to participate in a telephone conference. It also directed the City to update the court about Daniel Pearles’s military-leave status. The opinion states that the stay concerning Pearles had not been lifted.
Under the classification used here, this is a procedural order because the principal ruling was a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state legally sufficient claims, rather than a decision determining the underlying constitutional allegations.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.