Nunez v. Fraser

Background

Javier Nunez, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a damages action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against people acting under state authority for violations of federal rights. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees. He named Nicole Fraser, Olivia Giegerich, Mark Simon, and Pacheco as defendants.

Nunez alleged that:

- On February 5, 2018, he went to the Upper Manhattan Mental Health Clinic to speak with a therapist about a housing-related legal matter. Giegerich allegedly told him the clinic did not provide that service and then left. - On March 6, 2018, he returned to the clinic. He alleged that Simon and Fraser forced him into an ambulance and hospital after he reported that Luis Santiago had been removed from an apartment because of domestic violence. - On June 19, 2019, he went to make an identity-theft report, but Pacheco and other officers allegedly treated him unfairly.

He alleged emotional trauma and sought money damages.

Court’s analysis

Because Nunez was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court was required to screen his complaint. It had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, legally insufficient, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to give enough factual detail to make liability plausible, rather than merely reciting legal conclusions.

The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires facts showing both a violation of a federal right and action under state authority. It also requires facts showing each defendant’s personal involvement. A defendant generally cannot be held liable only because that person supervises or employs someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights.

The court said Giegerich and Simon appeared to be private parties not alleged to work for a state or government body. If that was so, Nunez had not stated a § 1983 claim against them. As to Fraser and Pacheco, whom the court described as appearing to be state actors, the complaint did not provide enough detail about what happened, their personal involvement, or why they were legally responsible for the alleged violations or injuries.

The court also said the claims appeared untimely. The relevant events allegedly occurred between February 5, 2018, and June 19, 2019, while Nunez filed the complaint on January 22, 2023. The court explained that New York’s three-year limitations period generally applies to § 1983 claims. It found no facts in the complaint suggesting equitable tolling, but allowed Nunez to address timeliness in an amended complaint.

The opinion states that the federal claims had been dismissed and that the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. The court nevertheless granted leave to amend rather than ending the case immediately.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Nunez leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must replace the original complaint, include all facts and claims Nunez wants the court to consider, and identify the relevant people, events, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. The order states that no summons would issue at that time and that failure to amend within the deadline, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Nunez’s fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.