Dantzig v. Cnty. of Westchester
| Decision Date | 16 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-cv-8811 (NSR),19-cv-8811 (NSR) |
| Parties | PAUL DANTZIG, Plaintiff. v. COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER; ANTHONY SCARPINO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY; and GEORGE LATIMER EXECUTIVE, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Pro se Plaintiff, Paul Dantzig ("Plaintiff" or "Dantzig") commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("§ 1983") against Defendants County of Westchester, Westchester County District Attorney Anthony Scarpino ("DA Scarpino"), Westchester County Executive George Latimer ("CE Latimer") (together, "Defendants") for malicious prosecution arising out of his arrest and prosecution between November 3, 2018 and August 8, 2019. The case was initiated in the New York Supreme Court, Westchester County, under the Index No. 63079/2019, and was subsequently removed to this Court by Defendants County of Westchester and DA Scarpino. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(5) arguing, among other things, that: (1) DA Scarpino is subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity and absolute immunity; (2) Plaintiff has failed to allege a plausible Monell claim against Westchester County; (3) Plaintiff has failed to allege a plausible official capacity § 1983 claim against CE Latimer; and (4) Plaintiff has failed to effect service of process on CE Latimer in his individual capacity. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice.
The following facts herein are drawn from Dantzig's Complaint, except as otherwise indicated. The Court "accepts all well-pleaded facts in the Complaint as true for the purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss." Jackson v. NYS Dep't of Labor, 709 F.Supp.2d 218, 222 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
Pro se Plaintiff, Paul Dantzig, is a doctor that was prosecuted for, and exonerated of, criminal harassment in the second degree for events occurring on November 3, 2018. On that day, he visited his son at St. Vincent's Hospital ("St. Vincent's") in Harrison, New York, grew dissatisfied with the conditions of St. Vincent's and treatment of his son, and complained to unnamed individuals about these issues. (Compl. ¶ 3-4.)
Plaintiff's expression of dissatisfaction was not well received by St. Vincent's staff. Unspecified staff members responded to Plaintiff's complaints by forcing him to leave the hospital, denying him access to the hospital to visit his son in the future, threatening him with physical violence, and otherwise acting "very inappropriately." (Id. ¶ 5.) In addition, unnamed staff members contacted law enforcement to report Plaintiff's unspecified conduct and press unstated charges against Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 6.)
The Harrison Police Department responded to the St. Vincent's emergency call by taking Plaintiff into custody and conducting an interrogation of Plaintiff that lasted approximately seven hours. (Id. ¶ 7.) During the interrogation, Plaintiff was chained to a pole and left standing insofar as he had "no place to sit." (Id.) Sometime during the interrogation, Harrison Police Departmentofficers generated false statements that they attributed to Plaintiff indicating that Plaintiff was suicidal, homicidal, or both. (Id. ¶ 8.)
Though the sequence of events and exact timing is somewhat unclear, Plaintiff was initially detained at the Harrison Police Department (Id. ¶ 7), and then subsequently involuntarily hospitalized at the New York Presbyterian Psychiatric Hospital ("NYPPH") in connection with the false suicidal and homicidal statements falsified by the Harrison Police Department. (Id. ¶ 10.) At NYPPH, Plaintiff was inappropriately admitted with a diagnosis of severe bipolar disorder with suicidal and homicidal tendencies. Plaintiff was involuntarily hospitalized for a total of five days and was discharged on or around November 8, 2018 upon a determination by NYPPH psychiatrists that Plaintiff did not have any psychiatric illness that justified continued hospitalization. (Id. ¶ 16.)
As a result of this diagnosis and involuntary admission, Plaintiff was threatened (by an unknown source) with the loss of his medical license, damage to his reputation, loss of income, and loss of his medical practice. He was also unable to care for his children (Id. ¶ 12), treat his patients, or attend to his medical practice (Id. ¶ 14). Plaintiff also developed hypertension and post-traumatic stress syndrome. (Id. ¶ 15.)
The Complaint vaguely alleges that DA Scarpino reviewed and approved (in an unspecified context) of the evidence collected by the Harrison Police Department, agreed to prosecute the charges against Plaintiff, and that this decision to prosecute violated unspecified New York State laws relating to patient rights and parental rights. (Id. ¶ 8-10.) The Complaint does not assert that DA Scarpino played any role in the investigation.
Either after Plaintiff's discharge from NYPPH, or sometime during his hospitalization, the Westchester County District Attorney's office pursued criminal charges against Plaintiff, and he was charged with aggravated harassment in the second degree. (Id. ¶ 17-18.) Some unspecified time after his discharge, during an unspecified pre-trial proceeding (possibly an arraignment), either Defendant DA Scarpino, or an unnamed assistant district attorney "argued obsessively in court to have the plaintiff reprimanded [i.e., remanded] to TASC," which likely refers to a pretrial diversion program, on the basis of allegedly nonexistence evidence of Plaintiff's psychiatric illness or drug use. (Id. ¶ 17.)
In January 2019, sometime after Plaintiff was charged with aggravated harassment via an unspecified charging instrument, Plaintiff moved to dismiss the charging instrument. (Id. ¶ 18). After the motion to dismiss was filed, DA Scarpino (or an assistant district attorney acting at his behest) voluntarily dismissed the aggravated harassment charge against Plaintiff, and filed "a new superseding violation, harrassment [second degree]" despite Plaintiff's contention that "there was no evidence for the crime." (Id. ¶ 19.)
On April 19, 2019, in connection with the production of trial exhibit lists and Rosario material—i.e., discovery material prosecution is obligated to disclose under New York state law pursuant to People v. Rosario, 9 NY.2d 286 (1961) and New York Criminal Procedure Law § 240.45—DA Scarpino submitted a letter identifying certain of Plaintiff's medical records as potential trial exhibits. (Id. ¶ 20.) Plaintiff does not allege whether: (1) he objected to the introduction of those records at trial, (2) the Court ruled on the admissibility of those records, or (3) the records were introduced at trial. Afterwards, on August 8, 2019, the prosecution of Plaintiff on the superseding charging instrument proceeded for an unspecified number of days. (Id. ¶ 21.)The trial ultimately ended with Plaintiff being "found innocent of all charges," presumably meaning that the jury returned a not-guilty verdict on the charge of harassment second degree. (Id.)
DA Scarpino is alleged to have "played an active role in the original case and subsequent charges and [unspecified] demands" (Id. ¶ 23), pursued the prosecution "with improper purpose" (Comp. ¶ 25), and engaged in actions that were "negligent, egregious, and malicious and caused terrible harm to the Plaintiff and his family" (Id. ¶ 26). The only other allegation in the Complaint bearing upon DA Scarpino's alleged purpose in pursuing the prosecution of Plaintiff is that DA Scarpino "was obsessively determined to get a conviction." (Id. ¶ 19.)
Plaintiff names the County of Westchester and CE Latimer in the case caption, and stated that "Westchester County . . . is responsible for administering and enforcing state laws" (Id. ¶ 1) but does not otherwise mentions those defendants in the Complaint.
Plaintiff filed this action in New York State court on August 23, 2019, under Index No. 63079/2019, seeking $5,000,000 and any additional punitive damages the Court deems just and proper. (Compl. ¶ 27.) Plaintiff effected service on Defendants Westchester County and DA Scarpino on September 10, 2019, and those defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 23, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) As discussed below, Defendant CE Latimer contends that he did not receive effect service of process because the summons and complaint was served upon a receptionist that was not authorized to accept service on his behalf.
Defendants moved for leave to file a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff responded by filing a letter objecting to Defendants' request (ECF No. 9) and then subsequently filing a motion for a default judgment (ECF No. 10). By Opinion and Order dated December 20, 2019,the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for a default judgment because Defendants had timely sought leave to file a motion to dismiss and granted Defendants leave to file their motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 15.) On March 23, 2020, Defendants filed their moving papers (ECF Nos. 17-20), an affidavit of service indicating that the moving papers had been served upon Plaintiff on February 6, 2020 (ECF No. 21), and a letter explaining that they had not received an opposition papers from Plaintiff (ECF No. 22). In the intervening year, Plaintiff has not sought an extension of his deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss. The Court deems the motion fully briefed and this Opinion & Order follows.
Fed. R. Civ. P. § 12(b)(5) provides that a complaint may be dismissed for insufficient service of process. When considering a Rule 12(b)(5) motion, a court must look to matters...
To continue reading
Request your trial