Wright v. New York City Police Department

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedApril 15, 2024
Docket1:24-cv-00623
StatusUnknown

This text of Wright v. New York City Police Department (Wright v. New York City Police Department) 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
Wright v. New York City Police Department, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DELILAH CANDICE WRIGHT; N.R.; C.W., Plaintiffs, 24-CV-0623 (LTS) -against- NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; ORDER TO AMEND ET AL., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Delilah C. Wright, who is appearing pro se, brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children.1 By order dated February 20, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff 60 days’ leave to file an amended complaint. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, 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

1 Under Rule 5.2(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, court submissions that refer to the name of a minor child must do so by using only the child’s name’s initials. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(3). Plaintiff’s complaint reveals full names of her minor children. The Court has directed the Clerk of Court to restrict electronic access to that submission to a “case participant- only” basis. If Plaintiff refers to a minor child in any future filings, she must comply with Rule 5.2 by using only that child’s initials. dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. 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 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must

accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. BACKGROUND Plaintiff invokes the court’s diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, and names the following as Defendants: the New York City Department of Homeless Services; Newark International Airport; New Jersey Transit Police; Good Shepherd Services; Port Authority Police Department; Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; New York City Department of Education; New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation; New York City Transit Authority; Fire Department of New York; Borough of Manhattan Community College (“BMCC”); “Walmart Headquarters”; Dunkin Donuts; Air BnB; New York City Administration of Childrens Services; “Early Learning Coalition Headquarters”; Union City (Georgia) Police Department; Ward County Texas Sheriff’s Department; and “Greyhound Headquarters.”

The following allegations are taken from the complaint. Plaintiff’s clams against Greyhound and the Ward County Sheriff’s Department arose on August 4, 2021. Plaintiff “was thrown off the bus for wanting to sit in a different seat . . . because of a mess [her] youngest daughter made on the seat [they] previously sat in.” (ECF 1, at 25.) The bus passengers “became very violent” toward Plaintiff. (Id. at 25.) The Ward County, Texas, Sheriff’s Department came to the scene and Plaintiff was “illegally arrested.” (Id.) During the arrest, Plaintiff was “assaulted, drugged,” separated from her children, and “shot . . . in the face with a pepper spray gun.” (Id. at 26.) In September 2021, Plaintiff’s children were “neglected” and “bullied” by Early Learning

Center staff. (Id. at 26.) On April 14, 2022, an Emergency Medical Technician, was called to a shelter unit in which Plaintiff was staying after a “911 call was made to report sexual assault” on Plaintiff’s children. (Id.) “A janitorial worker was seen climbing onto the fire escape of the bathroom window to the shelter unit in which the children” and Plaintiff resided while Plaintiff’s children were using the bathroom. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges, I myself personally however did not witness the interaction but my daughter [redacted] was able to give an adequate description of the man who had climbed into the window and I recognized this man as the janitorial worker who had shortly prior to this incident had set down mouse traps in the unit because of an report of a rat in the unit the night before. With no tangible evidence of a mental health disorder or proper evaluation EMT of the Fire Department of the New York City illegally detained the children along with New York Police Department and forcibly admitted me into an ambulance to be mentally evaluated in Bronx Care hospital . . . . (Id. at 26-27.) As a result of “malpractice and negligence,” Plaintiff’s children were placed in foster care.” (Id. at 27.) Plaintiff alleges that during her evaluation, presumably at Bronx Care Hospital, Dr. Benjamin Awad told her she was cleared to be released from the hospital, but “[a]gainst those orders [she] was forcibly admitted . . . for three days due to a diagnosis of psychosis that [she] showed no symptoms of.” (Id. at 29.) During an April 18, 2022 proceeding before the Bronx Family Court, Plaintiff experienced “[h]arassment, bias, and many civil rights violations.” (Id. at 31.) She alleges that, “[a]fter submitting documentation and preponderance of evidence to support the claims of abuse[,] the rights of me and my children were deliberately ignored and mishandled by Judge Grace Park and multiple other jurists of the court including magistrate personnel who witnessed the harassment and at times participated.” (Id.) Beginning in June 2022, Good Shepherd Services staff “harassed and sabotaged my visits

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)
Wisconsin Department of Corrections v. Schacht
524 U.S. 381 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh
547 U.S. 677 (Supreme Court, 2006)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Thomas v. Astrue
674 F. Supp. 2d 507 (S.D. New York, 2009)
DESKOVIC v. City of Peekskill
673 F. Supp. 2d 154 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Iannaccone v. Law
142 F.3d 553 (Second Circuit, 1998)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wright v. New York City Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-new-york-city-police-department-nysd-2024.