Hussey v. The New York City Health and Hospital Corporation

Background

Yessuh Suhyes Hussey, who was detained at the time of the order, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation (H+H), its Chief Executive Officer Gregory Calliste, and its President and Chief Executive Doctor Mitchell Katz. Hussey alleged that blood was being excessively and forcefully withdrawn from him without his consent at H+H facilities. He did not state when or where the events occurred, identify the specific H+H facility or facilities, or provide factual context explaining why he was at an H+H facility or why people there were drawing his blood. He described decreased physical strength, mental cruelty, breathing problems, and decreased nutrients and organic substances as injuries. He sought to permanently stop the blood draws and requested $100,000 per vial of his DNA.

The court had previously allowed Hussey to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because he was a prisoner seeking relief against a governmental entity and its officials, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That screening required dismissal if the complaint was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought relief from an immune defendant. The court also applied Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires enough factual detail to make a claim plausible rather than merely possible.

Analysis

The court held that the complaint failed Rule 8 because it did not identify the dates, locations, or factual circumstances of the alleged blood draws. The court stated that, to the extent Hussey intended to claim deliberate indifference to medical needs under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment, he also needed to allege that he was in custody when the events occurred.

As to Calliste and Katz, the court explained that a § 1983 claim requires facts showing each defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. A supervisor cannot be held liable merely because an employee or subordinate allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights. The court found that Hussey alleged no facts showing Calliste’s or Katz’s personal involvement and dismissed the § 1983 claims against them for failure to state a claim.

As to H+H, the court explained that a § 1983 claim against the corporation requires facts showing that an H+H policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. The court found that Hussey’s allegations did not identify such a policy, custom, or practice and that he had not adequately alleged an underlying constitutional violation. The court therefore dismissed the § 1983 claims against H+H for failure to state a claim.

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its authority to hear related state-law claims, over any state-law claims Hussey may have intended to assert.

Ruling and effect

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court granted Hussey 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to replace the original complaint and include the relevant defendants, dates, locations, events, injuries, and requested relief. The court stated that no summons would issue at that time. If Hussey did not timely comply without showing good cause, the court 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.