Hussey v. Bellevue Hospital Center

Background

Yessuh Suhyes Hussey, who was detained at Rikers Island, filed the action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute allowing claims for violations of federal rights by state actors. The case was transferred from the Eastern District of New York to the Southern District of New York. The court had granted permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Hussey alleged that on February 17, 2020, New York City police officers forced him to Bellevue Hospital Center. At Bellevue, a physician diagnosed him with unspecified psychosis, a diagnosis Hussey disputed. He alleged mental cruelty and lost business, claiming losses of more than $10,000. He sought monetary reimbursement and an order permanently restricting him from New York hospitals.

Screening standard

Because Hussey was a detained plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court was required to read a self-represented complaint liberally, but the complaint still had to provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

Claims against Bellevue Hospital

The court treated the claims against Bellevue Hospital as claims against the New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation because Bellevue is part of that hospital network. For a federal civil-rights claim against that public corporation, Hussey had to allege that a corporation policy, custom, or practice caused the violation of his federal rights. The court found that he alleged only a specific personal experience and provided no facts showing that a policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation. It therefore dismissed the claims against Bellevue Hospital for failure to state a claim.

Claim against the Bellevue physician

The court understood Hussey’s disagreement with the physician’s diagnosis and treatment as a claim for constitutionally inadequate medical care. Because Hussey was a pretrial detainee, the court applied the Fourteenth Amendment standard for medical-care claims. That standard requires facts showing both a sufficiently serious risk to health or safety and that the defendant intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable care despite knowing, or having reason to know, of an excessive risk.

The court held that Hussey’s disagreement with the diagnosis and treatment was not enough to state a constitutional claim. It also found that his conclusory allegations did not overcome the usual presumption that a mental-health professional’s medical decisions are valid. The court therefore concluded that Hussey failed to state a federal civil-rights claim for inadequate medical care.

Possible false-arrest claim

The court read Hussey’s allegation that police officers “forced” him to Bellevue Hospital as possibly asserting a false-arrest claim. In this setting, police may take a person into custody under New York’s mental-health law when the person appears mentally ill and is acting in a way likely to cause serious harm to the person or others. A false-arrest claim requires facts showing confinement, awareness of the confinement, lack of consent, and confinement that was not legally justified.

The court found that Hussey’s bare allegation did not plausibly state such a claim. He did not provide context about what happened, did not expressly allege that he was arrested, and did not allege facts showing that the officers lacked probable cause. The court therefore concluded that he failed to state a federal civil-rights false-arrest claim. It granted him leave to file an amended complaint alleging additional facts supporting that claim.

State-law claims

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, because it had dismissed all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction.

Amendment and disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. It granted Hussey 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must identify the people allegedly involved, describe what each person did or failed to do, provide relevant dates and locations, describe the injuries, and state the requested relief. It will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. If Hussey does not timely amend and cannot show good cause, the court stated that it will direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment consistent with the order.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.