Velez v. City of New York

Background

Jimmy Velez sued the City of New York, the New York City Department of Correction, and three unnamed Department of Correction officers. Velez alleged that on April 13, 2018, the officers transported him by bus while his hands were cuffed behind his back and his seatbelt was detached. He described the ride as unsafe and aggressive and alleged bodily, mental, and emotional injuries.

Velez brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows suits for constitutional violations committed under state authority. He claimed that the bus ride violated the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Against the City, he relied on municipal liability, arguing that Department of Correction policies were enforced, encouraged, or sanctioned in a way that caused his injuries.

The City moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally sufficient claim. The opinion identifies the City as the only properly named defendant. Velez did not dispute that the Department of Correction was either not legally separate from the City or not an entity capable of being sued.

Municipal-liability claim

The court explained that a city cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because it employs an officer who allegedly committed misconduct. Instead, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that a municipal policy, practice, or custom caused the constitutional violation.

The court held that Velez had alleged only the single bus incident and had not identified what City or Department of Correction policies existed, when they were enforced, or how they caused the alleged injuries. The court found that a news article about a later Department of Correction incident and a separate lawsuit seeking disclosure of misconduct databases did not establish a City policy or a sufficiently widespread pattern. The court therefore concluded that Velez had pleaded respondeat superior—employer liability based only on an employee’s conduct—which is insufficient for a § 1983 claim against a municipality.

Unnamed defendants and relation back

The court also considered Velez’s apparent effort to preserve the ability to replace the John Doe defendants with named officers under the relation-back doctrine. That doctrine can allow an amended pleading to be treated as filed on the date of an earlier pleading, but the court held that Velez had not satisfied its requirements.

The court found that Velez had multiple opportunities to identify the officers and that the omission was a fully informed decision rather than a mistake about the proper defendants’ identities. The court also found that the potential defendants had not received the required notice without prejudice to their ability to defend the case. Under New York law, the court further found no showing of due diligence or an excusable mistake that would permit relation back.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken granted the City’s motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion and the case. The opinion also states that, to the extent Velez raised state-law claims against an individual officer or municipal entity, those claims were dismissed because he did not allege that he had filed the notice of claim required by New York law.