Grazette v. The City of New York

1

DAVID I. GRAZETTE, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20 Civ. 965 (ER) (SLC)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

November 14, 2022

TO THE HONORABLE EDGARDO RAMOS, United States District Judge:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

SARAH L. CAVE, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Pro se Plaintiff David I. Grazette (“Grazette”) alleges in his Second Amended Complaint that Defendants^[1]violated his constitutional rights in connection with a 2019 arrest. (ECF No. 96 (the “SAC”)). Defendants NYPH and Dr. Hird (“Moving Defendants”) move to dismiss the SAC pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 101 at 1 (the “Motion”)). Grazette did not file an opposition to the Motion.

For the reasons set forth below, I respectfully recommend that the Motion be GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

The Court summarizes the factual allegations in the SAC, which the Court accepts as true for purposes of the Motion. See N.J. Carpenters Health Fund v. Royal Bank of Scot. Grp., PLC, 709 F.3d 109, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2013); see also Corbett v. City of N.Y., No. 15 Civ. 09214 (GHW), 2016 WL 7429447, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2016). In addition, because Grazette is pro se, the Court may consider and include in this summary “factual allegations contained in [his] opposition papers and other court filings.” Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, No. 10 Civ. 891 (LGS), 2013 WL 4779639, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2013); see Davila v. Lang, 343 F.Supp.3d 254, 267 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (“Because [Plaintiff] is proceeding pro se, the Court may consider new facts raised in opposition papers to the extent that they are consistent with the complaint, treating the new factual allegations as amending the original complaint.”).

1. The Arrest and Commitment

On September 25, 2019, two uniformed New York City Police Department officers and “two men in suits” arrested Grazette inside 30 Rockefeller Plaza (the “Building”). (ECF No. 96 at 6). The four law enforcement officers handcuffed Grazette and took him “to a back room within the [B]uilding where two additional officers” joined (the six officers together, the “Officers”). (Id.) The Officers denied Grazette's request to be released. (Id.) Grazette did not resist arrest and remained handcuffed for more than four hours before being involuntarily admitted to NYPH pursuant to New York Mental Hygiene Law § 9.40, under the pretense that he “was running around the [B]uilding, pulling fire alarms and telling people [he] was training for the marathon[.]” (Id. (the “Commitment”)). Grazette was held at NYPH overnight. (Id. at 7).

2. NYPH

The next day, September 26, 2019, Dr. Hird, a director at NYPH, executed an “ED Inter-Intitutional [sic] Transfer Form[.]” (ECF No. 96 at 7 (the “Transfer Form”)). Grazette requested to be released, advised staff that he “would never do what [he] was accused” of, and attempted to prove his innocence by providing his “FDNY list number” and “chapter 2 of the [p]robe manu[a]l . . . .” (Id.) The staff of NYPH refused to release him. (Id.) Menand, who did not interview or examine Grazette, executed a “Notification of Status and Rights Involuntary Admission on Medical Certification[,]” which authorized Grazette's transfer to GSH pursuant to New York Mental Hygiene Law § 9.27. (Id.) Grazette was offered, but refused to sign, a treatment and transfer consent form. (Id. at 7-8).

3. GSH

Later the same day, September 26, 2019, Grazette was transferred from NYPH to GSH. (ECF No. 96 at 7). At some point, Dr. Levin informed Grazette that he was admitted “for wanting to kill a cop.” (Id. at 8). Grazette refutes this characterization, citing hospital records demonstrating he was “treated for ‘continued suicide, self-harm, or violence risk[;] [u]nstable with recently changed psychotropics, required frequently re-direction and PRN medication.'” (Id.) GSH declared Grazette “delusional, illogical, and paranoid when [he] explained” that he invented the “doughnut[] (donuts)” and “investigated] a PRO SE complaint in . . . EDNY[.]” (Id. at 9). Grazette was diagnosed with Bipolar I Disorder^[2] based on the “manic or psychotic episode at” the Building. (Id.)

At GSH, Dr. Agarkar treated Grazette. (ECF No. 96 at 9). Dr. Agarkar, with the help of GSH staff, forcibly injected Grazette with medication that rendered him unconscious and unable to formulate coherent thoughts for several hours. (Id.) Some time later, Dr. Agarkar “instructed [Grazette] to orally” ingest medication so that he would be “manipulated to call off [his] 72-hour appointed court hearing[.]” (Id.) Fearful for his life, Grazette complied. (Id.; see id. at 11 (“I filed to speak to a judge and was threatened by [Dr.] Agarkar to withdraw[] the action[, or she] would keep me locked in for longer, and my time[] there harder. I complied.”); see also id. (“I was in fear.”)).

4. Discharge

GSH discharged Grazette on October 4, 2019. (ECF No. 96 at 9). The Commitment accelerated Grazette's pre-existing heart condition. (Id.)

B. Procedural Background

On February 4, 2020, Grazette filed the complaint. (ECF No. 2 (the “Complaint”)). On April 21, 2020, the Court sua sponte dismissed the Complaint and granted Grazette 60 days to file an amended complaint or face dismissal for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 9 at 10-11). See Grazette v. Rockefeller, No. 20 Civ. 0965 (LLS), 2020 WL 1940366, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2020) (“Grazette I”). Grazette failed to do so, and, on July 17, 2020, the Court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). (ECF Nos. 10 (the “Dismissal Order”); 11 (the “Civil Judgment”)).

On July 21, 2020, Grazette requested to re-open the case and filed an amended complaint (the “FAC”). (ECF Nos. 12-13). On August 24, 2020, the Court vacated the Dismissal Order and Civil Judgment and re-opened the case. (ECF No. 16). On September 2, 2020, the Honorable Alison J. Nathan referred this matter to the undersigned for general pretrial supervision. (ECF No. 18).

On September 2, 2020, the Court sua sponte dismissed Grazette's claims against the State pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and the Eleventh Amendment, and his claims against the Commission, Mullen, Chin, and Anthony pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). (ECF No. 19 at 6-7). The Court observed that “a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying a defendant[,]” (Id. at 5 (citing Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997))), and directed the City to “ascertain the identity and badge number of each John Doe whom [Grazette] seeks to sue[.]” (ECF No. 19 at 5-6). The Court granted Grazette leave to amend again, emphasizing that “[t]he second amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the [FAC].” (d)

On October 26, 2020, the City asked the Court to stay the case until 30 days after the resolution of a Civilian Complaint Review Board (“CCRB”) investigation into Grazette's allegations. (ECF No. 32 (the “Motion to Stay”)). On October 27, 2020, the Court directed Grazette to respond to the Motion to Stay by October 30, 2020 (the “Response”), and advised him of available legal aid resources. (ECF No. 33 at 3). On November 4, 2020, the Court noted that Grazette failed to file the Response, and, accordingly, granted a courtesy extension to Grazette to file the Response. (ECF No. 36). On November 5, 2020, Grazette filed the Response.

(ECF No. 37). On November 6, 2020, the Court granted the Motion to Stay. (ECF No. 38 (the “Stay”)).

Notwithstanding the Stay, on March 24, 2021, Grazette moved for a default judgment against Doctors Levin and Agarkar. (ECF Nos. 51-52 (the “Default Motions”)). On May 5, 2021, the Court acknowledged receipt of the Default Motions, but reminded Grazette that the action remained stayed until resolution of the CCRB investigation. (ECF No. 54). After the City advised the Court that the CCRB investigation had concluded, (see ECF No. 76), on January 7, 2022, the Court lifted the Stay. (ECF No. 77). On January 26, 2022, the Court denied the Default Motions. (ECF No. 90). See Grazette v. Rockefeller, No. 20 Civ. 965 (AJN) (SLC), 2022 WL 252631, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2022) (“Grazette II”).

On February 22, 2022, Grazette filed the SAC, asserting that Defendants^[3]falsely arrested, involuntarily committed, and forcibly medicated him, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”). (ECF No. 96 at 1, 6-10). Grazette seeks relief in the form of $20,000,000 in monetary relief, “total” exoneration, medical expenses, written and verbal apologies, and “an opportunity to settle my dispute with [Officer] Muller in a gentlemen's fight[.]” (Id. at 12).

On March 16, 2022, the Moving Defendants filed the Motion. (ECF Nos. 101-03). On March 17, 2022, Judge Nathan referred the Motion for a Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 107). On April 11, 2022, the case was re-assigned to the Honorable Edgardo Ramos. (ECF min. entry Apr. 11, 2022).

On July 3, 2022, Grazette sent ex parte email communications, in violation of the Court's Individual Practices.^[4] (ECF No. 115). On July 5, 2022, the Court reminded Grazette that all communications with the Court must be by ECF filing, not email. (Id.; see ECF Nos. 87; 89; 92). Grazette has not filed an opposition to the Motion.

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Rule 12(b)(6)

In analyzing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must assess whether the complaint “contain[s] sufficient factual matter accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Co. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial...