Washington v. Tocco
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-05561
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Washington v. Tocco, Judge Swain dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the doctor was not a state actor.
The dismissal ended Charmeen Denise Washington’s action against Michael A. Tocco; the court also declined to consider any state-law claims and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
What happened
In Washington v. Tocco, Charmeen Denise Washington alleged that neurologist Michael A. Tocco violated her rights during treatment at a private hospital. She filed the case without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, and amended her complaint after the court asked for facts showing federal jurisdiction.
The court treated Washington’s constitutional allegation as a claim under a federal civil-rights law that requires action by a state actor. Because Tocco was described as a private doctor at a private hospital, and Washington alleged no connection to a state or other government body, the court found that she had not stated such a claim. The court also declined to consider any remaining state-law claims.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and did not allow another amendment. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment and denied Washington permission to proceed without paying fees on an appeal because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Washington v. Tocco · No. 1:23-cv-05561
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 10, 2023
Background
Charmeen Denise Washington filed the action against neurologist Michael A. Tocco. She proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. Washington alleged that, during an emergency-room visit at Lenox Hill on March 17, 2015, Tocco ordered electronic implants to be placed in her fallopian tubes and connected wires to her head and brain through an electroencephalogram machine. She also alleged resulting harms and sought $1 million for her potential offspring, along with appointment of a volunteer lawyer.
The court previously directed Washington to amend her complaint to provide facts showing that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case. Washington filed a second amended complaint and later submitted a letter with additional exhibits. The second amended complaint identified federal-question jurisdiction and alleged that Tocco violated her First Amendment rights and her freedom and pursuit of happiness.
Federal claim
Because Washington asserted a constitutional claim, the court treated it as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A claim under that statute requires facts showing both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and action by a person acting under state authority, commonly called a state actor. The court explained that private parties generally are not liable under § 1983.
The court found that Tocco was a private doctor working at a private hospital. Washington did not allege that he worked for, or was affiliated with, any state or other government body. The court therefore concluded that she had not stated a § 1983 claim against him.
State-law claims and amendment
After dismissing the federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims after a federal claim has been dismissed. The court stated that when federal claims disappear early in a case and only state-law claims remain, a federal court generally should decline that authority.
The court also declined to give Washington another opportunity to amend. It explained that she had already been given an opportunity to correct the complaint and that the defects in the second amended complaint could not be cured by another amendment.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Washington permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. The opinion additionally warned that misuse of that fee-waiver privilege could lead to an order requiring Washington to obtain prior permission before filing future actions without paying fees in that court.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.