Yourman v. Columbia NY Presbyterian Hospital

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 13, 2025
Docket1:24-cv-06286
StatusUnknown

This text of Yourman v. Columbia NY Presbyterian Hospital (Yourman v. Columbia NY Presbyterian Hospital) 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
Yourman v. Columbia NY Presbyterian Hospital, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ZEV YOURMAN, Plaintiff, -against- 24-CV-6286 (LTS) COLUMBIA NY PRESBYTERIAN ORDER TO AMEND HOSPITAL; JULIO PUJOLIS JR.; PAUL FREEMAN; J. DOES 1-10, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, alleging that Defendants discriminated against him because he is Jewish. By order dated August 21, 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 leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order. 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 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 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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 The following facts are drawn from the complaint.1 On December 8, 2023, at “Columbia Presbyterian[’s]” Allen Hospital, “Plaintiff was peacefully and quietly engaged in Jewish religious observances in a room designated for such activity.” (ECF 1, at 5.) During this time, Security Manager Julio Pujolis and Sergeant Paul Freeman “told Plaintiff he must leave hospital immediately – Freeman told Plaintiff to ‘take your Jewish stuff’ off campus.” (Id.) “Freeman

1 The Court quotes from the complaint verbatim. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation are as in the original unless noted otherwise. escorted Plaintiff all the way to the main road – this action was part of Columbia and affiliated institutions continuing anti-Semitism.” (Id.) DISCUSSION Plaintiff names “Columbia Presbyterian Hospital” as the defendant and describes events occurring at “Allen Hospital.” The Court understands Plaintiff’s claims to be directed at New

York-Presbyterian Allen Hospital and assumes, for the purposes of this order, that (1) Allen Hospital is operated by Columbia University and that (2) Columbia University receives federal funding, an element of a Title VI claim, as discussed below. Because Plaintiff does not state a claim under Title VI, the Court grants him leave to file an amended complaint. A. Title VI claim against Columbia Presbyterian Hospital Title VI prohibits a recipient of federal funds from intentional discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Zeno v. Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist., 702 F.3d 655, 664 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000d). “[C]ourts have regularly found that anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination amount to racial discrimination,” in violation of Title VI. T.E. v. Pine Bush Central School Dist., 58 F. Supp.3d 332, 354 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). Here, Plaintiff does not allege enough facts to state a claim under Title VI. First, Plaintiff

does not allege any facts describing his role at Allen Hospital or the reason for his being at the hospital. It is therefore unclear if he worked at the hospital or was an admitted patient or a visitor. Second, it is unclear why Plaintiff was in a room designated for religious observance, who informed him of this room’s availability, and why a security officer and police sergeant were stationed near this room. Finally, it is unclear why Plaintiff was escorted from Allen Hospital to a road, and whether he had a specific right to be at the hospital, either as an employee or a patient. Because the complaint does not state a claim against Defendant, but Plaintiff may be able to allege additional facts that would state a claim, the Court grants Plaintiff 60 days’ leave to file an amended complaint, as detailed below in the Leave to Amend section. B. Title VI claim against the individual defendants Plaintiff names as Defendants Julio Pujolis and Paul Freeman, the two individuals who

allegedly confronted Plaintiff while he was engaged in religious observation. Plaintiff cannot assert claims against these individuals under Title VI, however, because Title VI applies only to entities that receive federal funding. See Goonewardena v. New York, 475 F. Supp. 2d 310, 328 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2007) (“Title VI claims cannot be asserted against an individual defendant because the individual is not the recipient of federal funding.”). Because a Title VI claim cannot be brought against an individual defendant, Plaintiff cannot state such a claim against Pujolis and Freeman, and the Court dismisses these claims for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C.

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)
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)
Zeno v. Pine Plains Central School District
702 F.3d 655 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Goonewardena v. New York
475 F. Supp. 2d 310 (S.D. New York, 2007)
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)
Yourman v. Columbia NY Presbyterian Hospital, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yourman-v-columbia-ny-presbyterian-hospital-nysd-2025.