Hussey v. The New York Police Department & Precincts in Manhattan NY

Background

Yessuh Suhyes Hussey, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The caption named “The New York Police Departments & Precincts in Manhattan NY” as defendants. On the complaint form, Hussey listed the City of New York Police Department’s Communications Division, Tape & Records Unit, and “The Commissioner” as a single defendant. The case had originally been filed in the Eastern District of New York and was transferred to the Southern District of New York.

Hussey alleged police brutality, physical and sexual harassment, life-threatening incidents, unlawful arrests, wrongful hospitalizations, and interference with financial opportunities. He claimed financial damages, back pain, headaches, scars, and hospitalizations. He sought $10 million, footage and information concerning past arrests, and disclosures identifying officers who had arrested him. He did not provide the dates and times of the incidents, stating that they were being withheld.

Court’s analysis

Because Hussey was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also had to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, but the complaint still had to provide a short and plain statement of facts showing entitlement to relief.

The court held that the complaint failed to meet that requirement. Although Hussey used terms such as “police brutality,” “sexual assault,” “unlawful arrests,” and “wrongful hospitalizations,” he did not describe the specific events underlying those claims. For example, he did not state when or where he was arrested, who arrested him, or facts suggesting that an arrest violated his federal constitutional rights. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

The court separately addressed the New York City Police Department and its precincts. It held that city agencies and precincts are not entities that can be sued. Even construing the claims as claims against the City of New York, the court found no allegations that a city policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of Hussey’s constitutional rights.

The court also found that Hussey did not allege the police commissioner’s direct and personal involvement in the events. A supervisor cannot be held liable under Section 1983 solely because someone who allegedly violated a plaintiff’s rights worked for or reported to that supervisor. The claims against the commissioner were therefore dismissed for failure to state a claim.

State-law claims and amendment

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Hussey might be asserting.

Because it was unclear whether Hussey could state a plausible Section 1983 claim by providing additional facts, the court granted him 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court directed Hussey to identify the people allegedly involved, describe what each person did or failed to do, provide approximate dates and locations, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. The court allowed the use of “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” for an unidentified defendant, while noting that this would not stop the applicable three-year limitations period.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and granted Hussey 60 days to replead his Section 1983 claims in an amended complaint. If he did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the court stated that it would enter judgment dismissing the action and decline supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.