Jennings v. Municipality of Suffolk Cnty.
| Decision Date | 13 February 2013 |
| Docket Number | No 11-cv-00911 (JFB) (ARL),11-cv-00911 (JFB) (ARL) |
| Parties | CYLDE J. JENNINGS, Plaintiff, v. THE MUNICIPALITY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, ET. AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Plaintiff Clyde J. Jennings ("plaintiff" or "Jennings") brought this action against the County of Suffolk, County Executive Steve Levy, the Suffolk County Police Department, the Narcotics Enforcement Special Operations Team (collectively, the "Suffolk defendants"), the North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System ("North Shore" or "Hospital") and medical doctor Mark Auerbach ("Dr. Auerbach") (collectively, the "medical defendants"), and other individually-named defendants who are members of either the police force or Hospital.1 ,2 Plaintiff alleges that the defendants deprived him of his civil rights when the Suffolk defendants inflicted excessive force upon him at the time of his arrest on December 20, 2007, and when, subsequent to his arrest, the defendants denied him adequate medical care while in police custody on December 20-21, 2007.3
Defendants move to dismiss this action, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the grounds that plaintiff's complaint fails to state a legally cognizable claim of a civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.Defendants additionally allege that plaintiff's Section 1983 claim is time-barred. The medical defendants likewise assert that plaintiff's medical malpractice claim is time-barred. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court grants the defendants' respective motions to dismiss all federal claims, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims.4
Specifically, plaintiff's Section 1983 claims are based upon defendants' alleged conduct in December 2007. Because this lawsuit was not filed until February 2011, the federal claims are untimely under the applicable three-year statute of limitations. Although plaintiff contends that additional improper medical care received in the summer of 2011 (that was only necessary because of the alleged December 2007 conduct) should extend the three-year period, the Court disagrees. The 2011 medical care is a separate and discrete event, unrelated to the 2007 conduct and to the defendants in this case. For this reason, the 2011 medical care cannot resurrect the untimely claims related to the alleged 2007 conduct. Moreover, plaintiff has failed to allege a sufficient basis for equitable tolling. Accordingly, the federal claims are dismissed.
The following facts are taken from plaintiff's February 24, 2011 complaint, as well as from his April 18, 2012 amended complaint, and are not findings of fact by the Court. Instead, the Court assumes these facts to be true for purposes of deciding the pending motions to dismiss and will construe them in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the non-moving party.
Plaintiff alleges that, at approximately 10:00 p.m. on the night of December 20, 2007, members of the Suffolk County Police Department assaulted him during an arrest, causing him to sustain various physical injuries. (Compl. ¶¶ 3-7.)5 Specifically, plaintiff contends that, after being chased by a police officer, he laid down on the ground with his hands behind his back. (Id. ¶ 4.) An officer then punched him on the right side of his face, with another officer placing his foot on the previously punched part of plaintiff's face, pressing it into the ground. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.) With his hands now cuffed behind his back, plaintiff claims he next suffered several kicks to his face, (id. ¶ 6), and that "[a]fterwards, I was helped to my feet by several Police Officers, and the [sic] punching and hitting me with fist and retractible-batons [sic]," (id. ¶ 7.)
Plaintiff claims that, following the assault, he requested medical treatmentseveral times; each time, he was denied it. (Id. ¶¶ 10-14.) Following his arrest, plaintiff was brought to the Third Precinct where he was interviewed, photographed, and brought to the cell area. (Id. ¶¶ 10-13.) Plaintiff states that he expressed his need for medical attention to the interviewing officer, the photographer, and the cell attendant; all refused or failed to provide him with such treatment. (Id.)
The following day, December 21, 2007, police took plaintiff to the emergency room at Southside Hospital, a hospital owned and operated by North Shore. (Id. ¶ 17; Defs.' North Shore and Auerbach's Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss ( ) at 2.) Dr. Auerbach was his treating physician. (Compl. ¶ 17.) The transporting officers allegedly instructed Dr. Auerbach, along with co-defendants Tracy Busch, R.N. and David Reed, R.P.A.-C., to (Id.) According to plaintiff, the treating physicians provided him with "minimal treatment and [then] released [him] to the transporting [o]fficers." (Id.)
As a result of the alleged assault and deficient medical treatment, plaintiff asserts that he sustained various physical injuries, including a loss of teeth; "pains that [he] deal[s] with on a constant basis . . . in the entire right side of [his] body, from head to toes," (id. ¶ 19); eye sensitivity, (id. ¶ 20); under-eye bruising; and pains in his feet, right shoulder, and the lower part of his back, (id. ¶¶ 20-23.) On account of these injuries, plaintiff contends that neither exercise nor employment in the construction field (his prior field of work) are viable options for him upon release from detention. (Id. ¶ 36.)
Additionally, plaintiff claims in his amended complaint that, on June 14, 2011, a "corrective surgery" was improperly performed on him by non-party Dr. O'Kefee, which he contends constitutes a continuous violation of his civil rights by the medical defendants. (Pl.'s Aff. in Supp. of Mot. to Amend ("Am. Compl.") ¶¶ 1-3, 8.)6 Plaintiff suggests that the injuries he sustained during his 2007 arrest required oral surgery, (Am. Compl. ¶ 1), and that his 2011 treatment with Dr. O'Kefee is part and parcel of the deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim because "it has taken the duration of approximately four (4) years to come to this far [sic], and corrective surgery not be [sic] fully completed," (id. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff does not allege that Dr. O'Kefee is connected to the medical defendants, nor does he claim that the medical defendants are responsible, in whole or in part, for the alleged delay in the June 2011 corrective procedure.
Plaintiff submitted his complaint to prison officials on February 20, 2011. His complaint was subsequently filed on February 24, 2011. On April 28, 2011, Suffolk defendants filed their pre-answer motion to dismiss. Medical defendants filed their motion to dismiss on June 16, 2011.
On June 15, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to remove "pleadings from the Defendants that are insufficient to [plaintiff's] defense or any redundant, immatterial [sic], impertinent, or scandalous matter to this complaint," whichplaintiff asserted "aid in the purpose to create prejudice against the true issues of this complaint." (Pl.'s Mot. to Strike ¶¶ 1-2.) Suffolk defendants countered on June 17, 2011, noting that they had not filed any pleading in the action, with the exception of their pending motions to dismiss, such that Rule 12(f) could be deemed applicable. On July 25, 2011, plaintiff submitted a letter to the Court, requesting leave to amend. This request was filed on August 1, 2011.7 At a hearing held on December 28, 2011, the court denied plaintiff's motion to strike, but granted plaintiff's request to amend his complaint. Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint, against the same defendants but adding allegations related to the original claims, which the Court accepted on April 18, 2012.8 On May 18, 2012, the County defendants and medical defendants filed separate motions to dismiss. On June 18, 2012, plaintiff filed his response. On June 22, 2012, the medical defendants filed a reply. The Court has fully considered the submissions of the parties.9
In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court must accept the factual allegations as set forth in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See ATSI Commc'ns., Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007); Cleveland v. Caplaw Enters., 448 F.3d 518, 521 (2d Cir. 2006). The plaintiff must satisfy "a flexible 'plausibility standard,' which obliges a pleader to amplify a claim with some factual allegations in those contexts where such amplification is needed to render the claim plausible." Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2007). "[O]nce a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 563 (2007). Thus, the Court does not require "heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570.
This standard is especially true when a case involves a pro se plaintiff. The Second Circuit recently emphasized in Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial