Liverpool v. The City of New York

Background

Anton Liverpool, who was incarcerated in Rhode Island when the opinion was issued, brought the case without a lawyer. He alleged that, while he was a pretrial detainee at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island in 2018, he was injured during transportation to the Manhattan Detention Complex. According to his second amended complaint, Correction Officer Hermantin Surpris drove the Department of Correction bus erratically in hazardous weather, and the bus struck or scraped the entrance to the detention complex. Liverpool alleged injuries to his head, back, and neck.

Liverpool sued the City of New York and several correction officers and supervisors. He asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to a serious risk to his safety, based on the Fourteenth Amendment, and a negligence claim under New York law. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, and Rule 12(c), which applies a similar standard to the pleadings.

The opinion states that the defendants did not move on behalf of Correction Officer Surpris because he had died. It also states that Joseph Grima was named in the second amended complaint but had not been served and was not a party to the case.

Federal civil-rights claim

Because Liverpool was a pretrial detainee, the court analyzed his safety claim under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth Amendment. A pretrial detainee must allege an objectively serious risk of harm and facts showing that an official intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps to reduce a known excessive risk to health or safety.

The court held that Liverpool’s allegations that the bus driver accelerated too much while entering the bus depot sounded in negligence. The second amended complaint did not allege facts showing that any defendant intentionally created the dangerous condition or recklessly failed to address a known excessive risk. The court therefore dismissed the § 1983 deliberate-indifference claim against the individual defendants.

Liverpool argued in his opposition that Surpris might have been driving under the influence or rushing because of pressure to meet a work quota. The court did not consider those allegations because they were raised for the first time in the opposition and were not included in the operative complaint.

The court also dismissed the § 1983 claim against the City of New York. It reasoned that a municipality cannot be liable under § 1983 for employee conduct that is not itself a constitutional violation, and Liverpool had not stated an underlying constitutional claim.

New York negligence claim

The court construed the second amended complaint as asserting negligence against all defendants. Under New York law, a negligence claim requires a duty, a breach of that duty, and an injury substantially caused by the breach.

For claims against a municipality or its officers, agents, or employees, New York law requires a notice of claim and generally requires the lawsuit to be started within one year and 90 days after the injury. The court determined that Liverpool’s claim accrued on or about March 23, 2018. It concluded that he needed to file the action by June 21, 2019, but filed it on June 11, 2020. Because the claim was untimely and Liverpool had not alleged facts supporting tolling, meaning a legal basis for pausing or extending the deadline, the court dismissed the negligence claim as untimely.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court noted that Liverpool stated in his opposition that he had filed a timely notice of claim. It explained that amendment may be appropriate when a plaintiff complied with the notice requirement but failed to say so in the complaint. The court also noted that Liverpool had not provided facts supporting tolling.

The court granted Liverpool leave to amend. It directed that any amended complaint include facts relevant to whether he filed a notice of claim and any facts supporting an argument for tolling the statute of limitations. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and directed the clerk to terminate the motion. Liverpool’s amended complaint was due by May 1, 2023.