Heller v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist.

Citation144 F.Supp.3d 596
Decision Date17 November 2015
Docket Number15-cv-705 (KBF)
Parties Adam Heller, Plaintiff, v. Bedford Central School District, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Michael Howard Sussman, Michael Anthony Deem, Sussman & Watkins, Goshen, NY, for Plaintiff.

Richard Gregg Kass, Barbara Vita Cusumano, Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Gregory John Radomisli, Martin Clearwater & Bell LLP, New York, NY, Alfred P. Vigorito, Bartlett Mcdonough Bastone & Monaghan, LLP, Joanna Marie Topping, Wilson Elser, Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, Lewis R. Silverman, Silverman And Associates, White Plains, NY, Susan H, Odessky, Steven C. Stern, Sokoloff Stern LLP, Carle Place, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

KATHERINE B. FORREST

, United States District Judge

KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge:

Plaintiff Adam Heller (“Heller” or plaintiff), a former public high school English teacher, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging numerous claims arising under the First, Second, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments against defendants Town of Pound Ridge (the “Town”), its police chief David Ryan (“Chief Ryan”), Bedford Central School District (the District), its superintendent Dr. Jere Hochman (“Dr. Hochman”), and Westchester Medical Center (“WMC”), along with a number of state law malpractice claims against WMC and defendants Drs. Susan Kemker (“Dr. Kemker”) and Alexander Lerman (“Dr. Lerman”).1

Plaintiff's claims arise from a series of alleged actions taken by varying overlapping sets of defendants primarily in or about January 2013 following an anonymous call alerting authorities to potential instability in plaintiff's mental health, investigation of plaintiff's disturbing online conversations referencing, inter alia , killing people, and plaintiff's concurrent purchase of multiple firearms. Plaintiff alleges false arrest, involuntary commitment at WMC, termination as a tenured high school English teacher, violation of his alleged right to possess his firearms under these circumstances, and chilling of his speech and expressive conduct.2

Pending before the Court are two motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) filed by the District and Dr. Hochman (ECF No. 32), and by the Town and Chief Ryan (ECF No. 35). The motions raise numerous grounds for dismissal. As set forth below, the Court finds many of these arguments meritorious in light of the particular factual circumstances alleged and the context of this case. Because the Court's decision rests on the particular circumstances present here, the Court emphasizes that its decision should not be interpreted as supporting or allowing for a diminution of the First Amendment and other rights of, inter alia , public school teachers. Rather, the Court's decision reflects the fact that the complaint—when viewed in conjunction with the substantial existing record of plaintiff's prior state administrative and court proceedings (incorporated by reference into the complaint)—shows that defendants acted carefully, deliberately, and incrementally to address justifiable concerns raised by plaintiff's delusional and potentially dangerous behavior. For these reasons, and those set forth below, the motions to dismiss are GRANTED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Materials Considered on Defendants' Motions

In considering a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

, a court is ordinarily limited to consideration of the factual allegations set forth in the plaintiff's complaint. Roth v. Jennings , 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir.2007). However, the court may supplement those allegations with facts from documents either referenced therein or relied upon in framing the complaint, see DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C. , 622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir.2010), or documents upon which the complaint solely relies and which are integral to it, Roth , 489 F.3d at 509. [A] plaintiff's reliance on the terms and effect of a document in drafting the complaint is a necessary prerequisite to the court's consideration of the documents on a dismissal motion; mere notice or possession is not enough.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc. , 282 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir.2002)

(emphasis in original).

Courts may also properly consider statements set forth in documents of which judicial notice may be taken where the plaintiff relied on the contents of the documents in drafting the complaint, but only to establish the existence of an opinion, not for the truth of the facts asserted. Global Network Commc'ns, Inc. v. City of New York , 458 F.3d 150, 157 (2d Cir.2006)

. ‘The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.’ Corley v. Jahr , No. 11 Civ. 9044(RJS)(KNF), 2013 WL 265450, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2013) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) ).

In this case, the complaint directly references and discusses the content of plaintiff's online chat communications with Georgia O'Connor (June 15, 2015 Decl. of Steven C. Stern (“Stern Decl.”), Ex. C at 41, ECF No. 36; see Compl. ¶¶ 41-48, ECF No. 1), the hearing officer's decision in plaintiff's N.Y. Education Law § 3020-a

disciplinary proceeding (Stern Decl., Ex. B; see Compl. ¶¶ 150-61), and plaintiff's appeals of the § 3020-a hearing to the New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County, and the New York State Appellate Division, Second Department (June 15, 2015 Aff. of Richard G. Kass (“Kass Aff.”), ECF No. 33; see Compl. ¶¶ 162-64). Plaintiff does not dispute the authenticity of these materials. Because these materials are integral to the complaint and incorporated by reference therein, the Court may properly consider them in relation to the pending motions.

The facts set forth below, which the Court accepts as true for purposes of this motion, see Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)

, are alleged in the complaint or are integral to or incorporated by reference into the complaint. Although the records from plaintiff's § 3020-a hearing and subsequent state court litigation are voluminous, the Court here recounts only those factual allegations relevant to resolving the pending motions, or to providing helpful background information.

B. General Background

At the time plaintiff filed this suit (and during the period relevant to the complaint), he was a thirty-six year old resident of the Town of Pound Ridge, Westchester County, New York. (Compl. ¶ 4.) Until the events giving rise to this suit, plaintiff was employed as a tenured English teacher at Fox Lane High School in the Bedford Central School District, located in Westchester County. (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 21-22.) He had regular contact with 125-150 students each semester. (Compl. ¶ 24.) The District is comprised of five elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school, and is superintended by Dr. Hochman and governed by a seven-member Board of Education. (Compl. ¶ 5.)

C. Plaintiff's December 2012January 2013 Activities and Resulting Law Enforcement Investigation

On December 13, 2012, plaintiff purchased a Winchester Model 1300 12-gauge pump action shotgun from Precision Armory, a retail seller of firearms. (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 32.) This was his first firearm purchase. (Compl. ¶ 33.) The next day, December 14, 2012, plaintiff returned to Precision Armory and purchased a Mosin Nagant bolt action rifle. (Compl. ¶ 34.) A “couple of weeks” later, a friend gave plaintiff a .22 caliber rifle. (Compl. ¶ 36.) In early January 2013, plaintiff became interested in purchasing a Ruger 10/22 .22 caliber rifle “as a survivalist tool in the event of a major catastrophe,” although he did not ultimately purchase one. (Compl. ¶ 39.)

On December 7, 2012, less than a week before he bought his first firearm, plaintiff began an online conversation with a friend named Georgia O'Connor through Words with Friends, an online Scrabble game with a private instant messaging feature. (Compl. ¶¶ 41-42, 45.) Ms. O'Connor is a medium—one who communicates with spirits—by profession. (Compl. ¶ 41.) That conversation remained ongoing for approximately one month until about January 10, 2013. (Compl. ¶ 45.) Among the topics that plaintiff discussed with Ms. O'Connor were the school shootings that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14, 2012, and the potential misuse by the government of technology to affect weather patterns. (Compl. ¶ 46.) In a December 27, 2012 exchange, after O'Connor's asked “what are you up to?”, plaintiff responded:

stewing in anger ... because the snow you are about to clean up was created artificially ... as was the wind that lasted for 30 hours straight ... so was “hurricane” sandy ... i'm really pissed ... and want to kill people ... because the people who are behind it are evil ... and it pisses me off that we are being manipulated ... and lied to ...

(Stern Decl., Ex. C at 41.) When Ms. O'Connor asked plaintiff, “what people do you think deserve to die from the sins of an evil government?”, plaintiff responded “oh I don't know. But I could probably do some research and hand you a list ... #1. someone should just shoot down one of the planes ... this is how my mind works.” (Stern Decl., Ex. C at 43.) When Ms. O'Connor replied, “adam, you are scaring me. what plane ? ? ?”, plaintiff replied “the planes that spray chemicals through the sky ... that creates this natural weather.” (Stern Decl., Ex. C at 43-44.)

Plaintiff alleges that on or about January 8, 2013, the FBI contacted Bedford Police Chief William Hayes and reported that a female friend of plaintiff's called with concerns about plaintiff's well-being. (Compl. ¶ 49.) Chief Hayes contacted Chief Ryan, who had jurisdiction over plaintiff's residence. (Compl. ¶ 52.) Members of various law enforcement agencies, including Chiefs Hayes and Ryan, and members of the FBI, met on or about January 8, 2013...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Kaplan v. Cnty. of Orange
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 23 Marzo 2021
    ...a probability or substantial chan[c]e of dangerous behavior, not an actual showing of such behavior." Heller v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist. , 144 F. Supp. 3d 596, 622 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (citation omitted), aff'd , 665 F. App'x 49 (2d Cir. 2016) ; see also M.C. v. County of Westchester , No. 16-CV......
  • Mizrahi v. City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 13 Agosto 2018
    ..."a probability or substantial chan[c]e of dangerous behavior, not an actual showing of such behavior." Heller v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist., 144 F. Supp. 3d 596, 622 (S.D.N.Y.2015) (quoting Monday v. Oullette, 118 F.3d 1099, 1102 (6th Cir. 1997)), aff'd, 665 F. App'x 49 (2d Cir. 2016). "Proba......
  • Severin v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 31 Marzo 2021
    ...Plaintiff's retaliation claims are not barred by collateral estoppel. See Beechwood, 436 F.3d at 153; Heller v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist., 144 F. Supp. 3d 596, 616-617 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); Dillon, 917 F. Supp. 2d at 216; Saunders v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 07 CV 2725(SJF)(LB), 2010 WL 2985031......
  • Bryant v. Steele
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 22 Mayo 2020
    ...only "a probability or substantial chance of dangerous behavior, not an actual showing of such behavior." Heller v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist. , 144 F. Supp. 3d 596, 622 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Determining probable cause to justify a mental health seizure requires ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT