Dunham v. Philip Lobello
1:11-cv-01223
| S.D.N.Y. | May 2, 2014Background
- Dunham, proceeding pro se at the time, moves to amend the operative complaint to add 13 LMMHC medical staff, a police dog, and NYPD, plus state-law claims against Officers Oliver and Lobello.
- The FAC was filed Oct. 20, 2011; the initial Complaint Feb. 16, 2011; SAC submissions followed with opposing letters in 2012–2014.
- On Feb. 15, 2008, Lobello allegedly stopped Dunham, directed him to identify himself, and his police dog attacked him; Dunham was later handcuffed and arrested.
- Dunham was treated at Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center (LMMHC) by named staff; he alleges he was handcuffed to the bed and received inadequate care, causing pain and permanent nerve damage.
- The court applies Rule 15(a)(2) standards, assesses futility and prejudice, and liberal pro se interpretation; amendments are granted in part and denied in part.
- The court allows §1983 claims against LMMHC employees via relation back; denies state-law claims and adding NYPD or the police dog; requires a SAC by May 16, 2014.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the police dog and NYPD may be added as parties | Dunham seeks to include dog and NYPD | Dog not a person; NYPD lacks authority to be sued | Denies amendments; futile |
| Whether state-law claims against the City, Oliver, and Lobello are barred | Seek state-law claims against City and officers | Notice of Claim requirements not satisfied; claims barred | Amendment denied for City/Oliver/Lobello due to lack of notice |
| Whether LMMHC state-law claims are barred for lack of notice | State-law claims against LMMHC defendants | Strict notice requirements apply | Denied; no state-law claims against LMMHC defendants due to notice failure |
| Whether § 1983 claims against LMMHC employees relate back | Claims relate to initial arrest/treatment | Relation back uncertain | Allowed; relation back to timely complaint established |
| Whether § 1983 claims against LMMHC defendants may proceed in light of accrual | Claims timely by 2008 arrest/treatment | Limitations apply; may be included via relation back | Granted; LMMHC defendants may be included under §1983 via relation back |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard of plausibility for federal claims)
- Holmes v. Grubman, 568 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 2009) (leave to amend may be denied for futility or prejudice)
- Dougherty v. Town of North Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2002) (futility standard for amendments under Rule 15)
- Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2008) (liberal pleading standard for pro se plaintiffs)
- Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2011) (pro se pleadings should be construed liberally)
- Cornejo v. Bell, 592 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2010) (§ 1983 claims require state action; accrual principles)
- Shomo v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2009) (statute of limitations and accrual for § 1983)
- Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2007) (capacity of city agencies to be sued; notice of claim context)