Gelish v. Retro Predecessors USA Government and present USA President Joseph…

Background

Steven W. Gelish proceeded without a lawyer and sued numerous defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that permits certain civil-rights claims against people acting under state law. He alleged that defendants violated his rights and committed medical malpractice during his detention at Creedmoor Psychiatric Center from 2014 to 2017. He also asserted that the United States government breached a constitutional obligation to promote the general welfare. He sought $12,000,000,000 in compensatory damages.

The court screened the complaint under the statute governing lawsuits filed without prepaying fees. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or otherwise lack a required basis for proceeding.

Rulings

- Federal defendants: The court dismissed the damages claims against the United States, President Joseph Biden, Christopher Way, Christopher Schroeder, Michael Horowitz, the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA Ombudsman, and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy because sovereign immunity generally bars damages suits against the United States, its agencies, and federal officials sued in their official capacities. - New York State defendants: The court dismissed Gelish’s Section 1983 claims against Governor Kathy Hochul, Attorney General Letitia James, and Dr. Ann Marie Sullivan because the Eleventh Amendment generally protects states and their agencies or officials from such suits in federal court. The opinion states that New York had not waived that immunity and that Congress had not removed it for these claims. - Commissioner Ashwin Vasan: The court dismissed the claims against Commissioner Vasan because the complaint did not allege facts showing his direct and personal involvement in any violation of Gelish’s rights. The court granted 30 days’ leave to replead these claims. - New York City Police Department: The court dismissed the claims against the NYPD because a New York City agency is not an entity that can be sued. The court also declined to treat the claims as claims against New York City because the complaint did not allege that an NYPD officer violated Gelish’s constitutional rights. The court granted 30 days’ leave to allege facts supporting any claim against New York City, including a municipal policy, custom, or practice that caused the alleged violation. - NOVA and WGBH: The court dismissed the claims concerning NOVA and WGBH because the complaint did not provide a basis for treating them as state actors, a required element of a Section 1983 claim. The opinion describes WGBH as a private entity and found no basis to conclude that NOVA was anything other than a privately produced program. - Martha Adams Sullivan and Dr. Myra Recon-Bucevic: The court dismissed the claims against these two defendants because Gelish did not allege facts showing their personal involvement. The court declined to grant leave to replead those claims in this district because the opinion states that the relevant events occurred in Queens County, which is in the Eastern District of New York. The court dismissed these claims without prejudice to seeking relief against those defendants in the proper venue. - State-law claims: After dismissing the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over any state-law claims Gelish may have asserted.

Disposition and next steps

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii), with 30 days’ leave to replead claims against New York City and Commissioner Vasan. If Gelish did not file an amended complaint within that period, the court stated that the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered.