Smith v. Westhb Traverse House

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 2, 2025
Docket1:24-cv-04961
StatusUnknown

This text of Smith v. Westhb Traverse House (Smith v. Westhb Traverse House) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. Westhb Traverse House, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KEVIN A. SMITH, Plaintiff, -against- 24-CV-4961 (LTS) WESTHAB TRAVERSE HOUSE; ORDER TO AMEND YONKERS POLICE; DONNELL ONIELL; NAOMI WILLIAMS, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. By order dated July 2, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret

them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). BACKGROUND The following facts are drawn from Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff Kevin Smith and Defendant Donnell O’Neill were both living at Westhab Travers House, a homeless shelter on Vark Street in Yonkers, New York.1 On March 28, 2024, O’Neill started an argument, and O’Neill and another shelter resident then both pushed Plaintiff and ran away. Shortly thereafter,

police officers from the Yonkers Police Department knocked on Plaintiff’s door and, without asking Plaintiff any questions, arrested him. Plaintiff was initially charged with menacing and harassment and, when he appeared before the court the next morning, he was also charged with possession of a weapon. Plaintiff was detained for 46 days. As a result of having been detained, Plaintiff lost all of his possessions, including his clothes, passport, driver’s license, and identification. On May 31, 2024, the criminal charges against him were dismissed. Plaintiff brings this action seeking $100,000 “in total losses.” (ECF 1, at 7.) He sues “Yonkers Police,” Donnell O’Neill, and Westhab Travers House and its employee Naomi Williams.

DISCUSSION A. Yonkers Police Department Plaintiff’s claims against the Yonkers Police Department (sued as “Yonkers Police”) must be dismissed because, under New York law, municipal agencies or departments do not have the capacity to be sued. See Omnipoint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Town of LaGrange, 658 F. Supp. 2d 539, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“In New York, agencies of a municipality are not suable entities.”); Hall v. City of White Plains, 185 F. Supp. 2d 293, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“Under New York law,

1 Travers House is named in the complaint as “Traverse House.” (ECF 1, at 1.) departments which are merely administrative arms of a municipality do not have a legal identity separate and apart from the municipality and cannot sue or be sued.”); see also N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 2 (“The term ‘municipal corporation,’ as used in this chapter, includes only a county, town, city and village.”).

Claims against such administrative departments must be asserted against the municipality of which they are part. For purposes of this order, the Court therefore construes Plaintiff’s claims as asserted against the City of Yonkers, which he has not named as a defendant. When a plaintiff sues a municipality such as the City of Yonkers under Section 1983, however, it is not enough for the plaintiff to allege that one of the municipality’s employees or agents engaged in some wrongdoing. The plaintiff must show that the municipality itself caused the violation of the plaintiff’s rights. See Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011) (“A municipality or other local government may be liable under . . . section [1983] if the governmental body itself ‘subjects’ a person to a deprivation of rights or ‘causes’ a person ‘to be subjected’ to such deprivation.” (quoting Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 692 (1978)).

In other words, to state a Section 1983 claim against a municipality, the plaintiff must allege facts showing (1) the existence of a municipal policy, custom, or practice, and (2) that the policy, custom, or practice caused the violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Jones v. Town of East Haven, 691 F.3d 72, 80 (2d Cir. 2012). If Plaintiff seeks to assert a claim based on a policy, custom, or practice of the City of Yonkers, he must name the City of Yonkers as a defendant in an amended complaint, identify the policy, custom, or practice at issue, and plead facts showing that the policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of his constitutional rights. Alternatively, a Section 1983 claim can be brought against an individual government actor who was personally involved in violating Plaintiff’s rights. See Spavone v. N.Y. State Dep’ t of Corr. Serv., 719 F.3d 127, 135 (2d Cir. 2013) (“It is well settled in this Circuit that personal involvement of defendants in the alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint and replead claims arising from his arrest, any claims against an individual

officer or municipal employee, he must include facts about what the individual personally did or failed to do that violated Plaintiff’s rights. If Plaintiff wishes to name a defendant but does not know the individual’s name, he may refer to that individual as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” in both the caption and the body of the amended complaint, with a description that allows the person to be identified.2 B. Private Parties Plaintiff sues Westhab Travers House, its employee Naomi Williams, and resident Donnell O’Neill. Plaintiff invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and the Court therefore considers whether he states a civil rights claim under Section 1983 against these defendants. A claim for relief under Section 1983 must allege facts showing that each defendant acted

under the color of a state “statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Private parties therefore generally are not liable under the statute. Sykes v. Bank of America, 723 F.3d 399, 406 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Rendell-Baker v. Kohn
457 U.S. 830 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Fabrikant v. French
691 F.3d 193 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Sykes v. Bank of America
723 F.3d 399 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. Town of LaGrange
658 F. Supp. 2d 539 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Hall v. City of White Plains
185 F. Supp. 2d 293 (S.D. New York, 2002)
Connick v. Thompson
179 L. Ed. 2d 417 (Supreme Court, 2011)
Jones v. Town of East Haven
691 F.3d 72 (First Circuit, 2012)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Smith v. Westhb Traverse House, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-westhb-traverse-house-nysd-2025.