Andrews v. Rico
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-06968
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Andrews v. Rico, Judge Liman dismissed Bellevue Hospital but ordered service steps to continue against the remaining defendants.
Michael Andrews’s claims against Bellevue Hospital were dismissed. The case’s service process was directed to continue for New York City Health + Hospitals, the City of New York, Kevin Rico, and Officer Evans.
What happened
In Andrews v. Rico, Michael Andrews, representing himself, alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront and reviewed the complaint under the rules for such cases.
The court dismissed Bellevue Hospital because it is a facility within New York City Health + Hospitals and cannot be sued separately. The court ordered the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to take steps to serve New York City Health + Hospitals and the City of New York. It also ordered the New York City Law Department to provide service addresses for Kevin Rico and Officer Evans.
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered these service procedures, dismissed Andrews’s claims against Bellevue Hospital, and denied fee-free status for any appeal because the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Andrews v. Rico · No. 1:23-cv-06968
- Lewis Liman
- Aug. 21, 2023
Background
Michael Andrews, who was representing himself, brought an action alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. The court had granted him permission to proceed without paying filing fees upfront. The opinion describes the defendants as Kevin Rico, Officer Evans, NYC Health Hospitals Queens, and Bellevue Medical Center.
Screening of the Complaint
Because Andrews was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also stated that it must interpret a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally and consider the strongest claims suggested by the complaint.
Bellevue Hospital
The court concluded that Bellevue Hospital is a facility operated by New York City Health + Hospitals, formerly called the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. Although the larger corporation can be sued, the court held that Bellevue Hospital, as a facility within that corporation, cannot be sued in its own capacity. The court therefore dismissed Andrews’s claims against Bellevue Hospital.
Service of the Remaining Defendants
The court ordered the Clerk of Court to prepare service forms and summonses for New York City Health + Hospitals and the City of New York and to deliver the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service. Because Andrews was proceeding without prepaying fees, the Marshals Service would carry out service. The court extended the service period to 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, Andrews was told to request an extension.
The court also found that the complaint provided enough information for the New York City Law Department to identify service addresses for Rico and Evans. It ordered the Law Department to provide those addresses to the court within 60 days. After receiving the information, the court would direct preparation of the service forms and delivery of the documents to the Marshals Service.
Other Directions and Disposition
The court instructed Andrews to notify it in writing if his address changes and noted that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so. It also provided information about a free legal clinic for people representing themselves, while explaining that the clinic is not part of the court and cannot file documents for litigants.
Judge Lewis J. Liman’s order dismissed Andrews’s claims against Bellevue Hospital. It instructed the Clerk to prepare service materials for New York City Health + Hospitals and the City of New York, mail the order to the New York City Law Department, and provide Andrews with an information package. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.