Hussey v. "John Doe" Licenses Plate HLD 8446 of the owner Mazda, Vehicle
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-03562
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Hussey v. “John Doe” Licenses Plate HLD 8446, Judge Swain dismissed the civil-rights case but allowed amendment after finding no facts showing state action.
Yessuh Suhyes Hussey’s Section 1983 action was dismissed, but he received 60 days to file an amended complaint. The unidentified defendant was not required to defend the dismissed pleading at this stage.
What happened
Yessuh Suhyes Hussey v. “John Doe” Licenses Plate #HLD 8446 of the Owners Mazda, Vehicle involved a damages claim under a federal civil-rights law. Hussey, who was held at the Eric M. Taylor Center on Rikers Island, sued an unidentified person he said was an active or retired correction officer.
Hussey alleged that on August 29, 2020, outside the Red Lion Restaurant in New York, the defendant had been drinking, called him a “moron,” and punched him in the face. Hussey said he identified the person as a correction officer, but he did not provide facts showing that the person acted with government authority.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action for failing to state a claim, but granted Hussey 60 days to file an amended complaint. The court also denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Hussey v. "John Doe" Licenses Plate HLD 8446 of the owner Mazda, Vehicle · No. 1:23-cv-03562
- Laura Swain
- July 4, 2023
Background
Yessuh Suhyes Hussey filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages. He proceeded without a lawyer and had permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court stated that prisoners’ complaints must be screened and dismissed if they are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
Hussey sued “John Doe” Licenses Plate #HLD 8446 of the Owners Mazda, Vehicle. He alleged that the defendant was either an actively employed or retired correction officer. According to Hussey, on August 29, 2020, outside the Red Lion Restaurant in New York, the defendant had been drinking and punched him in the face because the defendant believed Hussey was “a moron.” Hussey alleged that he later looked at the defendant’s identification and noted that the person was a correction officer whose card had expired and who might also be retired.
Court’s Analysis
To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and conduct by a person acting under color of state law. Acting under color of state law generally means using power provided by state law or made possible by official state authority. The court explained that state employment alone does not automatically make an official’s conduct state action, and that conduct arising from an officer’s personal pursuits generally is not covered.
The court found that Hussey had not alleged enough facts to show that the defendant acted under color of state law. If the defendant was retired when the incident occurred, the defendant was not acting under color of state law. Even if the defendant was actively employed, Hussey alleged only that the defendant was intoxicated, was outside a restaurant rather than at or near a jail or prison, and punched him because of a personal insult. Those allegations did not show a connection between the attack and the defendant’s official duties.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed Hussey’s Section 1983 claims and dismissed the action for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The court granted Hussey 60 days to file an amended complaint alleging facts showing how the defendant acted under color of state law. If Hussey did not timely amend or show a valid reason for not doing so, the court stated that the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment dismissing the action. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.