Washington v. Abedin

Background

Charmeen Denise Washington filed the action without a lawyer and was permitted to proceed without prepaying filing fees. She sued Dr. Yasmin Abedin and Metropolitan Hospital. Her original complaint referred to alleged violations of “Human Hippa Rights and Universal law” and other legal provisions. Her amended complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law.

Washington alleged that electronic implants had been placed in various parts of her body at the Metropolitan Nursery Incubator on January 18, 1994. She alleged injuries including rape, assault, faulty diagnosis, psychosis, obesity, petty larceny, job loss, and homelessness, and sought $100 million. She attached 833 pages of documents, but the court said it was unclear how they related to her claims.

Reasons for dismissal

The court held that Washington had not stated enough facts to show what Dr. Abedin or Metropolitan Hospital did or failed to do that violated the Constitution or federal law. The court explained that Metropolitan Hospital, as a facility within the New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation, could not be sued independently, and therefore construed the claims as also involving that corporation. A claim against the corporation would require facts showing that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged violation. The court found that Washington had not supplied those facts.

The court also concluded that the § 1983 claims were likely barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations. The alleged events occurred in 1994, while Washington filed the original complaint in 2023. The court found no facts supporting equitable tolling, which is a limited extension of a filing deadline in circumstances where applying the deadline would be unfair. The court explained that even assuming the deadline was extended because Washington was a minor when the events occurred, the claims would still have become untimely years before she filed suit.

Because Washington did not currently state a federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims.

Other rulings and leave to amend

The court denied Washington’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date. It granted her 60 days to file a second amended complaint. The new complaint must provide facts supporting a claim against the Health + Hospitals Corporation, may name that corporation as a defendant, and must include any facts supporting equitable tolling. The court directed Washington to keep the submission to no more than 20 pages and to identify the relevant people, events, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief.

The court stated that the second amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints. It kept the matter open on the docket while awaiting a civil judgment and warned that failure to file on time, without good cause, could lead to entry of judgment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.