Jelen v. U.S. Marshals Serv.
| Decision Date | 30 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | 18cv680 |
| Parties | SEAN JELEN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Pro se Plaintiff Sean Jelen brings civil rights claims and medical malpractice claims against an amalgam of federal, state, and private defendants. Defendants United States Marshals Service ("USMS"), United States Marshal Michael Greco,1 and Deputy United States Marshals Kevin Kamrowski, Ivan Santos, Jamal Brown (collectively, the "Federal Defendants") move to dismiss Jelen's Second Amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants Westchester County and Westchester County Correction Commissioner Joseph K. Spano2 (collectively, the "Westchester Defendants") move to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). And Defendants Beth Israel Hospital, Joshua Alge, and Temina Levine (collectively, the "Beth Israel Defendants") move to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). For the following reasons, Defendants' motions are granted and this action is dismissed.
For purposes of these motions, this Court liberally construes all of the allegations in the sprawling and prolix 44-page Amended Complaint. On July 15, 2016, Jelen pled guilty to bank fraud and attempted bank fraud in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 15.) The district court scheduled Jelen's sentencing for January 8, 2018. (Am. Compl. ¶ 18.) On January 6, 2018—two days before his scheduled sentencing—Jelen was admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital in Brooklyn, New York ("Mount Sinai Brooklyn"), complaining of abdominal pain and rectal bleeding. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 19-20.) When Jelen failed to appear for sentencing, the district court issued an arrest warrant (the "Warrant"). (Am. Compl. ¶ 21.) Execution of the Warrant was conditioned on Jelen's release from the hospital. (Am. Compl. ¶ 21.)
On January 11, 2018, Jelen was transferred from Mount Sinai Brooklyn to Mount Sinai Beth Israel Hospital in Manhattan, New York ("Beth Israel"). (Am. Compl. ¶ 22.) On January 17, 2018, Deputy U.S. Marshals Kamrowski and Brown entered Jelen's hospital room and informed him that he was under arrest. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 25-26.) Jelen objected, claiming that the Warrant could not be executed because he was in the hospital. (Am. Compl. ¶ 27.) Kamrowski, in the presence a physician's assistant and a nurse—Defendants Alge and Levine, respectively—informed Jelen that Beth Israel had, in fact, discharged him. (Am. Compl. ¶ 28.) Levine removed Jelen's intravenous line so that he could be escorted from the hospital. (Am. Compl. ¶ 26.) As Kamrowski effected the arrest, Jelen demanded to speak with legal counsel or a family member. (Am. Compl. ¶ 28.) Kamrowski denied Jelen's request and required Jelen to surrender his personal effects, including his watch, cellphone, wedding band, and wallet. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 28-30.) Jelen alleges that Alge fabricated the discharge paperwork because he hadnot been informed that he was being discharged until Kamrowski and Brown appeared at his bedside. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 103-05.)
According to Jelen, Kamrowski—apparently believing Jelen was Jewish—mocked him during transport to the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse in lower Manhattan (the "Moynihan Courthouse").3 (Am. Compl. ¶ 34.) Upon arrival at the Moynihan Courthouse, Jelen asserts that unidentified marshals escorted him to a holding cell with no toilet paper and ignored his requests for toilet paper. (Am. Compl. ¶ 35.) After an unspecified period of time, an unidentified marshal removed Jelen from the holding cell and brought him to another detention area where a physician from the Metropolitan Correctional Center ("MCC") reviewed Jelen's medical records. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 37-38.) When Jelen advised the physician that he had been hospitalized for complications related to Crohn's disease, the physician instructed Jelen to remove his trousers and underpants and examined Jelen's anus and genitalia in the presence of other detainees and prison staff. (Am. Compl. ¶ 38.) Following that examination, the physician concluded that MCC could not accept Jelen as a detainee. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 40.) The MCC physician advised Kamrowski and Brown that Jelen should not be returned to the hospital. (Am. Compl. ¶ 89(v)(B).) Instead, they transported Jelen to the medical unit at the Westchester County Jail (the "Westchester Jail"). (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 45, 51-53.) Prior to his transport to the Westchester Jail, Kamrowski allegedly physically assaulted Jelen and again denied his request to speak with an attorney. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 40-41.)
When Jelen arrived at the Westchester Jail, he demanded to be taken to a hospital and claimed that he had been unlawfully arrested. (See generally Am. Compl. ¶¶ 43-50.) Jelenclaims he was in great pain and was denied his prescription pain medication. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 43, 46-47, 49, 51). Later that evening, Jelen was placed in a cell in the Westchester Jail medical ward. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 42-53.)
The next morning, Deputy U.S. Marshal Santos explained to Jelen that he was being transported to the federal courthouse in White Plains, New York (the "White Plains Courthouse"). (Am. Compl. ¶ 55.) Jelen allegedly informed Santos that he needed bathroom access, but Santos ignored that request and drove Jelen to the White Plains Courthouse. (Am. Compl. ¶ 56.) There, Jelen claims he was placed in a holding cell with an inoperative toilet. (Am. Compl. ¶ 57.)
Later, Jelen appeared with a public defender before a magistrate judge. (Am. Compl. ¶ 60.) At the hearing, Jelen was shown an affidavit in which Santos attested that Jelen previously "checked himself [into a hospital] for mental health" purposes. (Am. Compl. ¶ 60.) Jelen claims that Santos's assertion was a "patent lie" designed to continue his false arrest. (Am. Compl. ¶ 60.) The magistrate judge ordered Jelen's release and directed that he be reunited with his property. (Am. Compl. ¶ 61.) However, Jelen claims that Santos refused to expedite the return of the property. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 67-68.) Upon his release, Jelen and his sister drove to Manhattan and secured the return of his property. (Am. Compl. ¶ 70.) All of these events—from Jelen's arrest at Beth Israel to his release from custody—unfolded over approximately 24 hours.
On January 25, 2018, Jelen filed this action. (ECF No. 1.) On January 31 2018, the district judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania sentenced Jelen principally to 70 months of imprisonment and remanded him to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.
"A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it." Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). "In resolving a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), the district court must take all uncontroverted facts in the complaint . . . as true[] and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the party asserting jurisdiction." Tandon v. Captain's Cove Marina of Bridgeport, Inc., 752 F.3d 239, 243 (2d Cir. 2014). If, however, "jurisdictional facts are placed in dispute, the court has the power and obligation to decide issues of fact by reference to evidence outside the pleadings, such as affidavits." Tandon, 752 F.3d at 243 (quotation marks omitted). "In that case, the party asserting subject matter jurisdiction 'has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it exists.'" Tandon, 752 F.3d at 243 (quoting Makarova, 201 F.3d at 113).
On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court accepts all facts alleged in a complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. ECA, Local 134 IBEW Joint Pension Tr. of Chi. v. JP Morgan Chase Co., 553 F.3d 187, 196 (2d Cir. 2009). The complaint must "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotation marks omitted). To survive a motion to dismiss, the court must find the claims rests on factual allegations that "raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 . "A court presented with a motion to dismiss under both Rule12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) must decide the jurisdictional question first because a disposition of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is a decision on the merits, and therefore, an exercise of jurisdiction." Encarnacion v. RMS Asset Mgmt. LLC, 2018 WL 4572240, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2018) (quotation marks omitted); see also Rhulen Agency, Inc. v. Ala. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 896 F.2d 674, 678 (2d Cir. 1990).
"[W]hen [a] plaintiff proceeds pro se, as in this case, a court is obliged to construe his pleadings liberally, particularly when [it] allege[s] civil rights violations." McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004). Therefore, this Court affords Jelen "special solicitude" by interpreting his complaint "to raise the strongest claims that it suggests." Hardaway v. Hartford Pub. Works Dep't, 879 F.3d 486, 489 (2d Cir. 2018).
To begin, Jelen brings a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA")—presumably against the USMS—for false arrest and false imprisonment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). The FTCA waives the federal government's sovereign immunity in tort suits for money damages for:
[P]ersonal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial