Hussey v. Gracie Square Hospital Psychologist David Rosen

Background

Yessuh Suhyes Hussey, who was detained at Rikers Island, filed the action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that on August 31, 2019, New York City Police Department officers physically abused and unlawfully arrested him and had him transported to Gracie Square Hospital. He alleged that this was the first time he had been hospitalized and that Defendant David Rosen diagnosed him with psychosis, although Hussey asserted that he did not have a mental illness or impaired abilities. He sought money damages.

The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of New York and was transferred to the Southern District of New York. The court had granted Hussey permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Because Hussey was a prisoner seeking relief, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and considered whether it was frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or raised claims over which the court lacked jurisdiction.

Court’s Analysis

Timeliness

The court explained that § 1983 claims in New York generally have a three-year limitations period and usually accrue when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury. Hussey alleged that the arrest and hospitalization occurred on August 31, 2019, but the complaint was filed on January 21, 2023—more than three years and four months later. The court said Hussey provided no facts suggesting that equitable tolling, which can extend a filing deadline in limited circumstances, should apply. The court therefore found that the claims appeared to be time-barred, while granting leave to amend with facts showing that the claims were timely or that equitable tolling should apply.

Claims Against Rosen

A § 1983 claim requires facts showing both a violation of a federal right and action under color of state law, meaning action by a state actor. The court stated that Gracie Square Hospital was private and that Rosen was not alleged to work for a state or government body. It therefore dismissed Hussey’s § 1983 claims against Rosen under the prisoner-screening statute.

False-Arrest Claim

The court construed Hussey’s allegations as possibly asserting a false-arrest claim based on his arrest and transport to a mental-health facility. A false-arrest claim requires facts showing that the defendant intentionally confined the plaintiff, the plaintiff knew of the confinement, did not consent, and the confinement was not legally privileged. In the mental-health setting, an arrest may be privileged when officers had probable cause—reasonable grounds—to believe that the person was mentally ill and likely to cause serious harm to himself or others.

The court found that Hussey’s statement that he was unlawfully arrested and taken to a hospital lacked context and did not allege facts showing that the arresting officers lacked probable cause. The court granted leave to amend this claim with additional supporting facts.

State-Law Claims

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning the court chose not to decide any state-law claims that Hussey might also have asserted.

Disposition and Leave to Amend

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and as untimely. It granted Hussey 60 days to file an amended complaint. The court instructed him to identify the people allegedly involved, describe what each person did or failed to do, provide relevant dates and locations, describe his injuries, and state the relief requested. The court also explained that a new amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. No summons would issue at that time. If Hussey failed to amend within the permitted period and could not show good cause, the court said it would direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment consistent with the order. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.