Moore v. City of New York

1

ALI MOORE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants

No. 22 Civ. 10957 (LGS)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

July 10, 2024

OPINION & ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Ali Moore brings this action against various Defendants based on his arrests and involuntary transports to New York City hospitals for emergency mental health treatment. Plaintiff was represented when the case was filed but is now pro se. Named Defendants in the Fourth Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”), the operative complaint, include New York City Health + Hospitals (“NYCH+H”), Harlem Hospital and four of its physicians, Dr. Nurur Rahman (s/h/a Dr. Nurur Raham), Dr Kalu Agwu, Dr. Ryan H. Hashem (s/h/a Dr. Ryan H. Hashe) and Dr. Gautam Balasubramania Pandian. (NYCH+H, Harlem Hospital the four named physicians and John Doe NYCH+H Defendants are referred to collectively as the “NYCH+H Defendants.”) Named Defendants also include the City of New York (the “City”); New York City Police Department (the “NYPD”); and five NYPD officers who are David Castro, Nilsa Patricio (now Nilsa Nivar) Sanjay Bajnauth, Antonio Castelluccio and David Maldonado; as well as one Fire Department of the City of New York (the “FDNY”) emergency medical technician (“EMT”), Kevin Rosas. (The City, NYPD, five named officers, FDNY EMT Rosas and John Doe City Defendants are referred to collectively as the “City Defendants.”)

The remaining named Defendants not listed above either have been served but have not yet responded to the Complaint, or have not yet been served. The Complaint also includes as Defendants certain John Doe NYPD officers, FDNY members and NYCH+H police officers.

The NYCH+H Defendants and the City Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons below, the motions are granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the Complaint. The Complaint's allegations are assumed to be true for purposes of this motion and are construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party. See Hu v. City of New York, 927 F.3d 81, 88 (2d Cir. 2019).

The Complaint describes incidents that took place on two dates. The Complaint alleges that on or about October 1, 2021, employees from Defendant Morningside Heights Housing Corporations contacted Defendant NYPD because Plaintiff was causing a disturbance outside of his residence, when in reality Plaintiff was attempting only to file a complaint with management employees. Defendant NYPD officers Castelluccio, Maldonado and unidentified NYPD officers John Does #1-10 arrived at the residence and, upon confirming Plaintiff's identity, forcibly grabbed him. The Complaint alleges that these officers placed Plaintiff in handcuffs and purposely overtightened them, leaving marks and injuries on Plaintiff's wrists. When Plaintiff requested that the police officers loosen the handcuffs, they tightened them further instead. The police officers then called an ambulance. Defendant FDNY EMT Rosas and unidentified FDNY members John Does #11-20 arrived on the scene. These events were witnessed by Plaintiff's neighbors, to his embarrassment and humiliation. The Complaint alleges that, at all relevant times, Plaintiff neither displayed any weapons nor threatened use of a weapon or force. While waiting for the ambulance, Defendants Castelluccio, Maldonado and Does #1-10 searched Plaintiff's personal belongings without his consent. When the ambulance arrived, these Defendants dragged Plaintiff to the ambulance by his handcuffs. Defendants Castelluccio, Maldonado, Rosas and Does #1-10 and #21-30 transported Plaintiff to Harlem Hospital.

At Harlem Hospital, Plaintiff was held for a psychiatric evaluation against his will. Unidentified NYCH+H police officers John Does #31-40 and Harlem Hospital staff Does #41-50 told Plaintiff he was not permitted to leave. The Complaint alleges that Does #31-40 dragged Plaintiff to the emergency psychiatric department and pinned him against the floor despite his cooperation. Defendant physicians Rahman, Agwu, Hashem and Balasubramania Pandian conducted evaluations of Plaintiff which resulted in Plaintiff's continued confinement at Harlem Hospital. Plaintiff spent one night in the hospital before leaving to stay with his father and receive a second opinion from co-Defendant Mount Sinai St. Luke's Hospital. When Plaintiff returned to Harlem Hospital to retrieve his belongings, his clothes and bag could not be located and Plaintiff received only his cell phone and keys.

The Complaint alleges that on or about October 5, 2021, after Plaintiff returned to his residence, Defendant Morningside Heights Housing Corporations called emergency services again. This time, Plaintiff was inside his apartment. Defendant NYPD officers Castro and Patricio, as well as Does #1-10 and #21-30, entered Plaintiff's apartment without his permission, most likely searched his property and told him they would not leave unless Plaintiff accompanied them. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff left his apartment with these Defendants out of fear for his life and a desire not to escalate the situation. Plaintiff was taken to co-Defendant Mount Sinai St. Luke's Hospital and discharged within an hour.

II. PRELIMINARY MATTERS: CONVERSION OF MOTION AND QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

A. Conversion of Motion to Dismiss to Motion for Summary Judgment

Movants' request to convert their motions to dismiss to motions for summary judgment is denied because discovery from Plaintiff will be important in deciding whether there is an issue of fact about what occurred during the alleged incidents. Whether to convert a motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment is within the discretion of the district court. See In re Merrill Lynch Ltd. Partnerships Litig., 154 F.3d 56, 60-61 (2d Cir. 1998); accord Peterson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 22-1343-CV, 2023 WL 4363239, at *2 (2d Cir. July 6, 2023) (summary order).

In the alternative, movants have asked the Court to consider information outside of the pleadings. The NYCH+H Defendants have attached Plaintiff's Harlem Hospital records, and the City Defendants have attached NYPD's Intergraph Computer Aided Dispatch Summaries and Aided Reports to support their arguments on issues such as probable cause and qualified immunity. However, these documents are not properly considered on this motion. “In considering a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a district court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, and documents incorporated by reference in the complaint” as well as any document that is “integral to the complaint.” Revitalizing Auto Cmtys. Env't Response Tr. v. Nat'l Grid USA, 92 F.4th 415, 436 (2d Cir. 2024).^[1] “[A] document may be considered ‘integral' to the complaint . . . where the plaintiff relies heavily on the document's terms and effect in pleading his claims and there is no serious dispute as to the document's authenticity[, for example] a contract or other legal document containing obligations upon which the plaintiff's complaint stands or falls.” United States ex rel. Foreman v. AECOM, 19 F.4th 85, 107 (2d Cir. 2021). Neither the proffered hospital records nor the police records are attached to, referenced in, or integral to the complaint. See, e.g., Hamilton v. Westchester Dep't of Corr., No. 19 Civ. 3838, 2020 WL 4271709, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2020) (at motion to dismiss stage, declining to consider medical records proffered by defendant when plaintiff alleged deliberate indifference to medical needs).

B. Qualified Immunity

The Court declines to adjudicate the assertions of qualified immunity by the NYCH+H Defendants and City Defendants at this stage. “Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages when one of two conditions is satisfied: (a) the defendant's action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such law.” Gorman v. Rensselaer Cnty., 910 F.3d 40, 45 (2d Cir. 2018). Again, further factual development, including at least Plaintiff's deposition, will be important to decide what happened and whether, under those circumstances, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 130 (2d Cir. 2013) (at motion to dismiss stage, declining to dismiss case on qualified immunity grounds because “qualified immunity is often best decided on a motion for summary judgment when the details of the alleged deprivations are more fully developed”).

III. LEGAL STANDARD

On a motion to dismiss, a court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party but does not consider “conclusory allegations or legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.” Dixon v. von Blanckensee, 994 F.3d 95, 101 (2d Cir. 2021). To withstand a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Kaplan v. Lebanese Canadian Bank SAL, 999 F.3d 842, 854 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; accord Dane v. UnitedHealthcare Ins. Co., 974 F.3d 183, 189 (2d Cir. 2020). It is not enough for a plaintiff to allege facts that are consistent with liability; the complaint must “nudge[ ] [plaintiff's] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, ...